##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11349

1 WP-627-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

rd

ON THE 3 OF FEBRUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 627 of 2026

KISHORI

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri H.S. Pateriya - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER

This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :

(i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned

order dated 03-04-2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no.2

as well as order dated 26-06-2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by the

respondent no.3 and direct the respondents/authorities not to disturb the

possession of the petitioner on the land granted to the petitioner under

Madhya Pradesh (Grant of Bhoomiswami Rights on Unoccupied Land)

(Special Provisions) Act, 1984.

(ii) To pass any such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit

under the circumstances of the case.

2. Challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 03.04.2013 passed

by the Board of Revenue dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner

against the order passed by the Commissioner Sagar Division Sagar dated

26.06.2006. The reasons for delay are that the petitioner fell ill and got a

spine surgery, therefore, he was unable to walk. He could not attend the case.

However, the fact remains that there is no material placed on record to show

that the petitioner was not well and not in a position to walk. The medical

documents which are filed in support of delay are pertaining to the year

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VINOD

VISHWAKARMA

Signing time: 10-02-2026

18:02:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11349

2 WP-627-2026

2010. The discharge ticket which is filed shows that the petitioner was

admitted in J.A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior on 08.07.2010 and was

discharged on 15.08.2010. No other specific medical document is placed on

record to demonstrate that the petitioner was not well and not in a position to

walk. The petitioner was well aware of the litigations pending before the

courts, even before the Board of Revenue, but he has not chosen to challenge

the same within reasonable time. The delay is not properly explained in the

petition. There is huge delay of almost 13 years to challenge the order passed

by the Board of Revenue dated 03.04.2013.

3. In this context, a plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

on the issue regarding delay and as to how, a Court of equity, exercising

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot extend its hands to

such persons who approach the Court after several years can be relied upon.

In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in several decisions that stale claims

ought not to be entertained by the High Courts exercising writ jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corpn.

Ltd. v. K. Thangappan reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322 has held as follows :

6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by

the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under

Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court

may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such

negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as

taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances,

causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is

involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed

out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (1969)

1 SCC 185. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and

reasonably.

7. What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VINOD

VISHWAKARMA

Signing time: 10-02-2026

18:02:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11349

3 WP-627-2026

Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd (1874) 5 PC 221 (PC at p.

239) was approved by this Court in Mo