Back
SUBODH ABHYANKAR
Deepak Karlekar, S/o. Late Shri Shankar Rao Karlekar – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
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 :—
(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,
The court affirmed that procedural fairness requires notice before dismissal for delay in appeals, emphasizing jurisdiction must align with correct statutory provisions.
Deemed consent applies when heirs benefit from a mutation order and remain silent, barring later challenges after significant delays.
The court established that revisional authority cannot interfere with interlocutory orders lacking sufficient reasoning, emphasizing the need for a reasoned decision.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented approach, the elastic nature of 'sufficient cause', and the need to consider the conduct, behaviour, and a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
