IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI th ON THE 6 OF DECEMBER, 2022 WRIT PETITION No. 27919 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

CHAKRADHAR SINGH S/O LATE RAMSAJEEVAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER, R/O. PASI TAHSIL RAGHURAJNAGAR SATNA DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI S.D. MISHRA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER REWA DIVISION REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE COLLECTOR SATNA DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SATNA DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. THE TEHSILDAR RAGHURAJNAGAR SATNA DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI GIRISH KEKRE - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

ORDER

Counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning validity of the order dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P/4)

Signature Not Verified passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of Sub Divisional Officer has been dismissed by the said authority on the ground that the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with his appeal since does not contain any sufficient reason for condoning the delay, therefore, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rejected and consequently, the appeal preferred by the petitioner also automatically dismissed as barred by time.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of Commissioner is not proper and it deserves to be set aside on the ground that instead of deciding the appeal on technical ground, the Commissioner should have decided the appeal on merit and, therefore, the order passed by the said authority is liable to be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the Commissioner for deciding the petitioner's appeal afresh on merit.

However, I am not satisfied with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with his appeal was neither supported by any affidavit nor supported by any documents of his ailment to the effect that he was hospitalized even after receiving the certified copy of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. The delay was almost of six months and that cannot be condoned merely because an application for condonation of delay has been filed. It is a settled principle of law that the delay of even a day cannot be condoned if the reason explained in the application cannot constitute a sufficient ground to condone the same. The Commissioner, therefore, did nothing wrong while rejecting the application saying that the reason assigned in the application is not proper and the application does not Signature Not Verified appear to be filed with bonafide intention.

Even otherwise, looking to the original dispute involved in the case that an application filed by the petitioner under Sections 115 and 116 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 for correcting the revenue record in which it is mentioned that the land owned and possessed by the petitioner and was being used as khalihan shown to be a land of wajib ul arz in the revenue record and, therefore, the said correction has been sought. However, enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry report it has come that the land in question was recorded in the revenue record as wajib ul arz since 1963-64 and as such, no correction is required. Even otherwise, considering the factual aspect of the matter and the fact that petitioner was very casual in prosecuting his dispute before the revenue authority and application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was loosely drafted without supporting the same by an affidavit or without any document, I am of the view that und