ORDER : 1. This case is taken up through video conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing/setting aside the order dated 5th March, 2020 passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanapur Division, Hazaribagh- respondent no. 3/revisional authority in Revenue Revision No. 132 of 2019 (wrongly typed as 132/2010), whereby the said revisional authority has declined to interfere with the finding of the Additional Collector, Chatra-respondent no. 4 on the ground that the revision application preferred by the petitioner was time barred. 3. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that by way of filing Revenue Revision No. 132 of 2019 before the respondent no. 3, the petitioner challenged the orders passed by the respondent no. 4, directing the petitioner-NTPC to pay compensation to the private respondents for their acquired land. The petitioner in its memo of revision had taken several grounds for assailing different orders passed by the respondent no. 4 including that it was not served any notice before passing the said orders, hence the same were in violation of the principle of natural justice. Though there was a delay in filing the said revision application before the respondent no. 3 and an application for condonation of delay was also not filed, the said respondent should have at least given an opportunity to the petitioner for filing application for condonation of delay instead of summarily rejecting the revision application preferred by the petitioner. 4. Mr. Manish Mishra, learned G.P.V. appearing on behalf of the State respondents, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 13 and Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 9 to 12, 14 and 16 to 26, jointly contend that the claims of the private respondents with respect to compensation in lieu of their acquired land are justified, yet fairly submit that they have no objection, if the matter is remanded to the revisional authority/respondent no. 3 for considering the same on merit. 5. Keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the parties as well as that the claims of the private respondents vis-a-vis the stand of the petitioner regarding payment of compensation in lieu of the acquired land are required to be considered by the revisional authority/respondent no. 3 on merit, the impugned order dated 5th March, 2020 is hereby quashed/set aside. 3 on merit, the impugned order dated 5th March, 2020 is hereby quashed/set aside. The matter is remanded to the said respondent, giving liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring the said revision application before the respondent no. 3 within a period of two weeks. The respondent no. 3 in turn is directed to consider the same liberally and to hear and dispose of the revision application preferred by the petitioner on merit after providing due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties within a period of four months thereafter. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction. 7. I.A. No. 3679 of 2020 and I.A. No. 3624 of 2021 are also disposed of.