IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 25 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 496 of 2026 RUCHITA AGNIHOTRI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Amit Khatri - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Amit Mishra - Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State.

Shri Abhishek Arjaria - Advocate for respondent No.2/caveator.

ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby the Board of Revenue has rejected the review petition and affirmed the order of the Commissioner dated

21.06.2005.

2. The brief background of the litigation is that there was an order of the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar dated 21.06.2005 and against that order a revision was filed by before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 04.06.2013. Against that dismissal, the subsequent purchaser of the revisionist filed a review petition with a delay of 37 months and without condoning the delay, the Board of Revenue allowed the review petition vide order dated 14.02.2017. The aforesaid order was challenged before the High Court in W.P. No.4028/2017 and this Court considered that since the present petitioner has already succeeded in civil litigation, therefore, this Court refused to enter into the merits of the order passed by the Board of Revenue and observed that the whatever outcome would be had in the civil litigation, would prevail over the orders passed by the Revenue authorities and the order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue shall be subject to the final outcome of the civil litigation.

3. Against the aforesaid order, W.A. No.1676 of 2024 was filed before the Division Bench by the present respondent No.2 and the Division Bench held that the Board of Revenue, before passing orders on merits, should have considered the question of condonation of delay and remanded the matter to the Board of Revenue to decide the question of condonation of delay and in case the same is allowed, then to consider the application for review on merits.

4. Now the Board of Revenue has decided the application for review on merits and rejected the review petition by upholding the order of the Commissioner dated 21.06.2005 and now the petitioner is before this Court contending that before deciding the application for condonation of delay, the Board of Revenue could not have entered into merits of the review petition.

5. In the considered opinion of this Court, this complaint could have been made by the opposite party in the review petition, that without condoning delay, review is being decided on merits. If in the review petition the Board of Revenue has already considered the merits, then impliedly the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay has been allowed by the Board of Revenue and if without passing a specific order on the condonation of delay application, the Board of Revenue has entered into merits of the matter, then the person who would be aggrieved would be the present respondent No.2 and not the present petitioner. The present petitioner was the petitioner in the review petition and if without dismissing the review petition on delay, merits have been considered, then it is something which does not damage the interest of the petitioner because if the condonation of delay application had been dismissed, then the review petition would have been dismissed as a consequence thereto. Therefore, the right to raise the question that the review petition has been considered on merits without dealing with the delay aspect, lies with the respondent in the review petition and does not lie with the petitioner in the review petition and, therefore, this Court does not intend to interfere in the order of the Board of Revenue on this ground.

6. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has raised the contention that the initial order passed by the Commissioner was for taking over the possession of the property and since those were not proceeding