The court affirmed that procedural fairness requires notice before dismissal for delay in appeals, emphasizing jurisdiction must align with correct statutory provisions.

ORDER :

Subodh Abhyankar, J.

Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :—

“(i) Quashed order dated 19-11-2019 and 27-11-2019 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and also quashed order dated 22-9-2022 passed by the Respondent No. 1 and issue appropriate writ, order of direction to the Respondent No. 2 to hear and decide the appeal on merits.

(ii) Pass any other and further orders and or directions as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case;

(iii) Allow this petition with costs.”

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is having a dispute with his brother respondent No. 4 Chandra Shekhar in respect of the property situated at Village Sundersi, Tehsil Polaykalan, District Shajapur and his brother without informing him has got the land mutated in his name in the year 2011, and after coming to know about such mutation in the year 2018 only, the petitioner filed an appeal before SDO under section 44 of M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short “the Code of 1959”) read with section 91 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short “the Adhiniyam of 1993”) along with an application for condonation of delay of 7 years. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed by the SDO on the ground of limitation without issuing notice to the respondents and the second appeal preferred before the Commissioner under section 44 of the Code of 1959 read with section 91 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 has also been dismissed holding that as per the amended Land Revenue Code, the order rejecting the application for condonation of delay is not an appealable order.

4. Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay ought not to have been dismissed by the SDO in the first motion itself without even issuing notice to the respondent No. 4 and it was not open for the SDO to decide the application on his own holding that the application is barred by limitation. Senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner had also made an objection on 21-4-2008, requesting the Gram Panchayat that the respondents be directed to maintain status quo, which document has been relied upon by the SDO to hold that the petitioner was already having the knowledge of the mutation. Senior counsel has submitted that when the objection itself was filed in the year 2008 and the mutation has taken place in the year 2011, it cannot be said that the petitioner had knowledge that when the objection was filed in the year 2008 by the petitioner, he already had the knowledge that the mutation would take place in the year 2011. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

5. Counsel for the respondent No. 4 has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the petition itself is misconceived as against the order passed by the Commissioner, an appeal would be maintainable under section 91 of the Adhiniyam of 1993, which is maintainable before the Competent Authority as provided under Rule 3 of the M. P. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (in short “the Rules of 1995”) in which in Clause (c) it is clearly provided that in the case of an order passed by the Commissioner or Director of Panchayats, the appeal would lie to the State Government.

6. Counsel for the State has also opposed the prayer and it is submitted that as the alternative efficacious remedy is also available to the petitioner, no case for interference is made out.

7. In rebuttal, senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Commissioner has rightly passed th