Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.
Musav Singh – Appellant
Versus
Dauja – Respondent
Misc. Petition No. 3271 of 2020
Decided on : 14-03-2024
Limitation - Property Dispute - MPLRC Sections 165 - The court emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach in considering delay applications, highlighting that appeals should be decided on merits rather than technical grounds, especially when sufficient cause is shown.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased land from the respondent, but the Tehsildar later reverted the property back to the respondent due to lack of prior sanction from the Collector. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed as time-barred, leading to this challenge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the delay condonation application was unfair and that the appeal should have been heard on its merits, as the delay was not willful and sufficient cause was shown.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the appeal should be decided on its merits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that appeals should be decided on merits unless there is a hopeless lack of merit, and that a liberal approach should be taken in considering applications for condonation of delay.
Result: The impugned orders were quashed, and the SDO was directed to decide the appeal on merit.
ORDER :
Challenge is made to order dated 7-8-2020 passed by Additional Collector, District Shivpuri in Case No. 14/Nigrani/2019-20, order dated 13-6-2019 passed by SDO (Revenue), Kolaras, District Shivpuri in Case No. 11/Appeal/2014-15 and order dated 30-7-2014 passed by Tehsildar, Kolaras, District Shivpuri in Case No. 13-14/B-121.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly, property was granted on lease to the respondent by the State. In the year 2011, petitioner purchased the land in dispute by way of registered sale deed from the respondent and on the basis of alleged sale deed, name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue record. Later on, in the year 2014, respondent moved an application before Tehsildar to the effect that previous sanction of Collector concerned has not been obtained before execution of sale deed and on the basis of said objection, Teshildar vide order dated 30-7-2014 deleted the name of the petitioner and recorded the property back in the name of respondent. Being aggrieved against the order of Tehsildar, petitioner filed a time barred appeal along with an application under section 5 of Limitation Act before the SDO Kolaras, District Shivpuri. Appeal was time barred by about 55 days. SDO rejected the application under section 5 of Limitation Act. Consequently, appeal was also dismissed. There against, revisionist/petitioner filed Case No. 14/Nigrani/2019-20 before the Collector which came to be heard and decided by Additional Collector, Shivpuri vide order dated 7-8-2020, dismissing the revision and confirming the order of SDO. Thus orders of Tehsildar, SDO and Additional Collector are impugned in the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that orders passed by Tehsildar, SDO and Additional Collector are against the law and fact and appeal has not been heard and decided on merit. It was decided on technical ground. It is settled legal position that matter should be decided on merit after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing if the delay is not willful. Learned counsel prays that petition be allowed and all the impugned orders be set aside, remanding the case to the SDO to provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass a fresh order on merit.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that impugned orders have rightly been passed by the authorities concerned. There is no need to quash them. SDO and Additional Collector have rightly rejected the application of the petitioner under section 5 of Limitation Act and appeal respectively.
6. Evidently appeal before SDO has been filed time barred by 55 days and application under section 5 of Limitation Act has also been filed to condone the delay and to hear the appeal on merit.
7. Property was granted on lease to the respondent by the State and petitioner purchased the land in dispute by way of registered sale deed. His name was mutated in the revenue record by the order of Tehsildar. His name has been deleted from the land on the ground that it was not purchased with the previous sanction of the Collector. If the transfer has been made in contravention of section 165 of MPLRC, land should have been vested in favour of the State but Tehsildar did not do so. Against the order of Tehsildar, time barred appeal was filed by the petitioner before SDO which has been dismissed only on the ground of 55 days’ delay. It is settled in law that appeal should have been heard on merit and the application under section 5 of Limitation Act should have been allowed unless otherwise. Rejection of delay condonation application by the SDO is not fair. Moreso, Additional Collector did not consider this point and dismissed the appeal summarily. Orders of SDO and Additional Collector deserve to be set aside.
8. In Amalendu Kumar Bera and others vs
The court established that appeals should be heard on merits, emphasizing a liberal approach to delay condonation applications.
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....
The court established that revisional authority cannot interfere with interlocutory orders lacking sufficient reasoning, emphasizing the need for a reasoned decision.
Point of law: Protection of possession - specific instances given in writing in the memo of appeal to point out that in few cases, enormous delay is condoned by the very authority, but the same has n....
The Competent Authority has the discretion to condone delay in filing challenges based on the circumstances of the case, including the lack of notice to the respondents and the necessity for a detail....
The main legal point established is the requirement of sufficient cause for condonation of delay, the equal application of the law to all parties, including the government, and the need for promptitu....
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
