The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the unsustainable nature of the impugned orders due to the lack of opportunity of hearing and violation of principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. The present petition is being filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

"(I) That, the impugned order of Annexure P/1, P/2 and P/7 may kindly be quashed.

(II) That, the order of Annexure P/3 dated 08.05.1990 may kindly be confirmed.

(III) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may kindly be granted."

2. The present petition is being filed by aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior (M.P.) whereby the appeal has been dismissed stating that the same is not maintainable against the order passed by the learned S.D.O. whereby the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

3. It is argued that the ownership has already granted to father of the petitioners by the Tehsildar in Case No. 232/89-90- vide order dated 08.05.1990 with respect to Survey No. 33 Rakwa 0.60 Hectare and similarly Survey No. 33/1 Rakwa 0.40 Hectare, Survey No. 76/2 Rakwa 1.00 Hectare. It is submitted that the name of father of the petitioners was duly recorded in the revenue record and continued up the year of 2017-2018 but khasra entries is not attached alongwith the petition. The entries are also made in Daiyara Panji at Serial No. 170. The petitioners were in possession of cultivating land in question since from the year 1988-89. Thereafter, an order has been passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Karera, District Shivpuri on 25.10.2017 making an observation that the lease was illegally granted in favour of the petitioners and has cancelled the entries recorded in the name of the petitioners' father. No notice was issued to the petitioners nor any opportunity of hearing was granted prior to passing such orders. Merely on the basis of Patwari's report, the order has been passed. The father of the petitioner's has expired, therefore, the appeal was preferred by the petitioners against the order passed by the Tehsildar. As the order was passed by the Tehsildar which was not in the knowledge of the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners have filed an appeal alongwith application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as claiming the reasons for the delay before the S.D.O. Karera. The S.D.O., Karera has dismissed the appeal holding that the same is barred by limitation and the limitation has not been properly explained. Again the order passed by the S.D.O. a revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, District Gwalior. The same has also been dismissed and is not to be maintainable. It is pointed out that the Bhumiswami Rights were conferred by the father of the petitioners far back in the year 1990 and since they were cultivating and were in possession of the property in question and continued upto the year 2017. The names were also recorded in the revenue record but after elapse of almost 30 years, the action has been taken against the petitioners by the learned Tehsildar without providing of any opportunity to them. He has placed reliance the Section 117 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Record (M.P.L.R.C.) and has argued that the aforesaid legal provision has not been considered by the authorities. He has further relied upon the judgment in the case of E. Parashuraman (deceased by L.Rs.) vs. V. Doraiswamy (deceased by L.Rs.) with G. Ramachandran v. V. Doraiswamy (deceased by L.Rs.), AIR, 2006 (SC) 376 and Karewwa and others v. Hussensab Khansaheb Wajantri and others, AIR, 2002 (SC) 504 and has submitted that the provision of Section 117 of MPLRC is ex parte which was followed by the authorities prior to passing such order. It is submitted that the order is per se illegal and arbitrary and is violative of principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the order is unsustainable. He prayed for quashment of the same.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the impugned order and has submitted that the same has rightly been passed