SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(MP) 683

PRANAY VERMA
Narendra – Appellant
Versus
Dhannalal – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Vishal Baheti for petitioner; Akash Rathi for respondent.

ORDER

1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.9.2014 (Annexure P/14) passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the Revision preferred by him has been dismissed as barred by time.

2. The record indicates that against an order dated 5.1.2013 passed by the Additional Tehsildar, Tehsil Indore and a letter dated 3.1.2013 sent to the Revenue Inspector for demarcation, the petitioner preferred a Revision under section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Board of Revenue. Since the same was barred by time an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was also preferred for condonation of delay in filing the same. The Board of Revenue has held that no sufficient reason has been furnished by the petitioner for condonation of delay and consequently the application has been rejected as a result of which the Revision itself has been dismissed as barred by time.

3. It is observed that the revision was preferred with a delay of 49 days. In the application for condonation of delay it was stated by the petitioner that no notice of the proceedings had been issued to him by the Tehsildar or the Rev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top