Delay in seeking legal redress undermines claims of natural justice, reinforcing the principle that equity favors prompt action.

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV th ON THE 25 OF AUGUST, 2025 WRIT APPEAL No. 2238 of 2025 KALLU (SINCE DIED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES (1) SHIVCHARAN PAL AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi, Sr. Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri S.S. Kushwah - Government Advocate for the State.

ORDER Per: Justice Pushpendra Yadav The instant appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed challenging the order dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P. No.4741/2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

2. The brief facts of the case are that being landless persons, the appellants were allotted patta of survey no.77 ad-measuring 0.60 hectare situated at village Deegod Tehsil Kolaras, District Shivpuri. The said patta was subsequently cancelled by the Tehsildar vide order dated 16.12.1992. Against the said cancellation of patta, the appellant preferred an appeal in the year, 2002 before the SDO. The SDO dismissed the said appeal vide order Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI dated 07.11.2002 on the ground of delay. After six years of the dismissal of the first appeal by SDO, the appellant filed second appeal before Additional Commissioner which was also dismissed as time barred vide order dated 11.08.2009. The said dismissal order dated 11.08.2009 was challenged by the appellant before the Board of Revenue in Revision. The Board of Revenue dismissed the said revision vide order dated 06.03.2013. After dismissal of the said revision, the appellant came before this Court in Writ Petition No.4741/2025 after delay of near about two years.

3. Before the learned Writ Court the contention of the appellant was that their patta was cancelled without affording any opportunity of hearing. The order passed by Tehsildar does not reflect that any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellants and in absence of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Learned Writ Court vide order dated 01.05.2025 dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and latches, hence the instant appeal.

4. It is an admitted fact that after 10 years from the date of cancellation of patta by Tehsildar, the appeal was preferred before the SDO and the same was dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2002. Thereafter, after a period of 6 years second appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner which also received the same fate and was dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2009. After dismissal of the second appeal by the Additional Commissioner, the appellant preferred revision before Board of Revenue and against the dismissal of the revision by the Board of Revenue, the appellant filed writ petition before this Court with a delay of two years. The appellants Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI had slept over their rights for approximately 10 years after passing of the initial order of review and, thereafter, again for a period of six years in preferring the second appeal before the Additional Commissioner. It is a settled law that delay defeats equity, therefore, issue with regard to non- adherence to the principles of natural justice and not giving opportunity of hearing has no meaning and cannot be agitated.

6. In the matter of Kishore Jagjivandas Tanna vs. Joint Director of Income-Tax (Investigations) and Another reported in 2020 SCC Online SC

1531, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 13 and 14 has held as under:-

"13. The second reason is also without merit, as we would elucidate. Remedies by way of writ under article 226 of the Constitution of India are extraordinary remedies exercised under the plenary jurisdiction conferred by the Co