ORDER :

1. This present petition has been brought being aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.1997, passed by the respondent No.2/Board of Revenue in Revision No. RN/3-1/CG/576/93, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

2. The facts presented in the case are this that the respondents No. 4 to 12 were Malgujars of Malkharauda Jagirdari, who were holders of the land in question. The petitioners are the persons, who were in possession of the land in question on the ground of grant or purchase or by sikhmi rights or by registered sale deed. Proceeding was drawn against the respondents No.4 to 12 under the M.P. Ceiling of Agriculture Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1960”). The petitioners filed their objections in that proceeding but the same was dismissed and order dated 18.03.1991 (Annexure P-5) was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) vesting the disputed land with the State Government. Subsequent to that the petitioners and the various villagers made representation before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sakti, for allotment of land from the government. The applications of some of the villagers were entertained and lease was granted in favour of some of the villagers vide order dated 22.05.1993 (Annexure P-6), but the case of the petitioners were not considered. The petitioners then preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue (Annexure P-7). Additional Tahsildar, Malkharauda had submitted report dated 07.11.1992 (Annexure P10), in which, the recommendations were made in favour of the petitioners for grant of government land on lease. The learned Board of Revenue has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners by order dated 29.10.1997 (Annexure P-13) only on the ground of limitation.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is cryptic order, by taking technical approach, without considering that the petitioners have been prosecuted their claim since very beginning by raising their objections. Hence, the order passed is erroneous without any justification. The appeal was required to be decided on merits for the reason that in the report of Additional Tahsildar, Malkharauda (Annexure P-10), their had been recommendation in favour of the petitioners, whereas on similar grounds, the other villagers of the vicinity were granted lease of the government land. Hence, the petitioners have been discriminated, which is violation of their constitutional rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the case be remanded back to the Board of Revenue with a direction to decide the appeal on merits.

4. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 opposes the petition and the submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that no error has been committed by the Board of Revenue in passing the impugned orders. The appeal was clearly delayed by two years, before it was filed in the Board of Revenue, regarding which, day to day explanation was required and there had been no such explanation given by the petitioners' side. Hence, the impugned order has been correctly passed, which needs no interference.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

6. On perusal of the impugned order dated 29.10.1997, it is clear that the appeal has not been decided on merits. Only consideration that has been given by the learned Board of Revenue was on the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

7. Section 44 of the Act, 1960 provides for limitation of 60 days from the order against which appeal or revision is to be preferred. It is further provided that the provisions of Section 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Indian Limitation Act shall also apply to the filing of such appeal or application for revision.

8. Section 35 of the Act, 1960, provides for allotment