IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN ON THE 5^th OF JULY, 2022 MISC. PETITION No. 524 of 2022 Between:-

DILIP AGRAWAL S/O PRABHATI LAL AGRAWAL , AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O BUS STAND GHODADONGRI TEHSIL GHODADONGRI, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY Mr. MOHD. SIDDIQUI, LEARNED COUNSEL)

AND

1. MANOJ S/O PRABHATILAL AGRAWAL , AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MERCHANT, R/O BUS STAND GHODADONGRI, TEHSIL GHODADONGRI, DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. KIRAN AGRAWAL Wd/O AMIT KUMAR AGRAWAL , AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O : NEAR OF KRISHI MANDI SHYAM TYRE HOUSE HARDA TEHSIL AND DITRICT HARDA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. RAJKUMARI W/O PRASHANT KUMAR AGRAWAL , AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O: SAMDARIYA COMPLEX Signature Not Verified SAN NEAR OF MOTINALA, NEAR NAYAPUL NALBAND MOHALLA, PS GOHALPUR, Date: 2022.07.07 11:11:42 IST JABALPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY MRS. AMRIT KAUR RUPRAH, LEARNED COUNSEL)

This petition coming on for admission, this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein, who is aggrieved by the order dated 15.9.2021 passed by the Upper Collector of District Betul in case No. 033/revision/2020-21 whereby the Collector set aside the order of the S.D.O. whereby the S.D.O. had allowed an application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner along with his appeal. The Collector passed the impugned order on the ground that the delay was not properly explained. In this case, the respondents had filed an application for mutation of the name in the property. The petitioner herein who also claims to be the owner of the said property came to know of the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 12.03.2020 allowing the application of mutation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner came to know of the impugned order sometime in November, 2020 and, thereafter, he preferred an appeal before the S.D.O. against the order of the Tahsildar along with an application for condonation of delay. The S.D.O. condoned the delay. Against the order of the condonation of delay, the respondents preferred a revision before the Collector in which the impugned order was passed and the order of the S.D.O. was set aside by which the application for condonation of delay stood dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the petition submits Signature Not Verified SAN that the petitioner has not stated the true facts in the petition and that he had Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH come to know about the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 12.03.2020 in May, 2020 itself and had received the entire certified copy of the proceedings before the Tahsildar and, thereafter, he filed an appeal only in November, 2020.

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Corona Pandemic was at its peak during that time and there was lock down, on account of which there was delay in filing the appeal supported by the application for condonation of delay.

It's a notorious fact that in the year 2020 especially in May, 2020, the Corona Pandemic was at its peak. All over, the Courts had relaxed the period of limitation in view of the pandemic, therefore, if the petitioner is not allowed to get his appeal heard before the S.D.O. only on the ground of limation during the pandemic period, grave injustice would be done.

Under these circumstances, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.09.2021 is set aside. The S.D.O. is requested to hear and decide the appeal of the petitioner within ninety days from the date of the order.

With the above, this petition is finally disposed of.

C.C. As per rules.

(ATUL SREEDHARAN)

JUDGE Vikram Signature Not Verified SAN