An order passed without jurisdiction is void and can be challenged at any time, regardless of delays in appeals.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH WRIT PETITION No. 8202 of 2013 JITENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS Versus POORAN SINGH Reserved for order on : 03/09/2025.

Order delivered on :18/09/2025 Appearance:

Shri Naval Kumar Gupta Senior Advocate with Shri YPS Rathore Advocate appeared for the petitioners.

Shri Ashish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent .

ORDER (Delivered on this day of 18/09/2025)

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties, matter is heard finally.

2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenges the order dated 14/12/2001 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Khaniyadhana, District Shivpuri, whereby, application filed by the respondent under section 89 of MPLRC in respect of the land bearing survey No. 34 & 13/5/9 area 1.00 hectare and new survey No. 34/2 & 37 area 0.68 hectare (herein after referred to as lands in question) was allowed and the khasra entries were corrected. The petitioners also challenge the order dated 05/05/2003 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Pichore, District Shivpuri, whereby, first appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY dated 14/12/2001 was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The petitioners also challenge the orders dated 11/07/2005 & 16/07/2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior and Board of Revenue, Gwalior, whereby, second appeal and revision preferred by the petitioners against the orders passed by the authorities below have also been dismissed and rejection of appeal by the Sub Divisional Officer on the ground of limitation has been maintained.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that an application under section 89 of MPLRC in respect of lands in question came to be filed by the respondent before the Tehsildar. Objection was filed by the petitioners before the Tehsildar to the said application. However, vide order dated 14/12/2001, the said application preferred by the respondent was allowed. The petitioners, thereafter, assailed the order dated 14/12/2001 in first appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer under section 44 of MPLRC with delay of approximately two years. The Sub Divisional Officer rejected the application for condonation of delay on the ground that petitioners were represented before the Tehsildar and no bonafide and sufficient reason has been shown for condonation of delay. Accordingly, appeal was also rejected. The rejection of the appeal on limitation was maintained by the Higher Authorities in second appeal and revision as mentioned herein above.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that section 89 of MPLRC gives power to the Sub Divisional Officer to correct the error. He submits that Tehsildar has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 89 of MPLRC filed by the respondent. The order dated 14/12/2001 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY passed by the Tehsildar is Coram non-judice. Even, if objection of jurisdiction was not raised before the Tehsildar or even if the petitioners surrendered to the jurisdiction of the Tehsildar then also the jurisdiction cannot be conferred even by the consent because the Tehsildar was lacking inherent jurisdiction in law. He further submits that appeal preferred by him could not have been rejected on the ground of delay. Even otherwise, the delay of two years cannot be said to be enormous which could not have been condoned. He further submits that question of jurisdiction of the authority to pass an order is the question of law and can be raised at any stage and even in collateral proceedings. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners in support of his content