An appeal filed belatedly cannot be decided on merits without condoning delay.

The petitioner challenged the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 15 July 2025 in R.A. No. 112/2025 and the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 18 March 2026 in R.P. No. 104/2025.

The dispute concerned mutation entries made in 2003, which were challenged before the Assistant Commissioner in 2025—approximately 23 years later.

The petitioner argued that the Assistant Commissioner decided the appeal on its merits without first condoning the delay.

The respondents contended that the delay had been condoned and also referred to a pending civil suit, O.S. No. 121/2026.

The High Court examined the Assistant Commissioner’s order and found that it did not address whether or when the delay had been condoned.

1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner could decide the appeal on its merits without first recording that the 23-year delay had been condoned.

2. Whether the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner should be set aside and the matter remitted for consideration of the delay.

An appeal filed after delay cannot be decided on its merits unless the delay has first been condoned; the authority must address the delay and decide whether it should be excused before proceeding to the merits.

The Court referred generally to the settled position of law of the Supreme Court and this Court concerning inordinate delay, but did not identify any particular statutory provision or precedent by name.

The writ petition was considered under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Assistant Commissioner’s order recorded the objection that the appeal had been filed after approximately 23 years, but did not state whether the delay had been condoned, either earlier or along with the merits decision.

The High Court therefore held that the appeal had been decided on its merits without the necessary prior determination of delay.

The Deputy Commissioner’s order also failed to address that defect.

The pending civil suit did not cure the procedural error; the Court separately directed the parties to comply with the civil court’s interim status quo order.

The parties were directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner by 12 October 2026, and the Assistant Commissioner was directed to dispose of the appeal within six weeks.

The parties were also directed to comply with the civil court’s status quo order.