Dolnath Panika vs Raghurai Kewat
2021 Latest Caselaw 7407 MP

                                                        1                               MP-3900-2021
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                        MP No. 3900 of 2021
                                       (DOLNATH PANIKA Vs RAGHURAI KEWAT AND OTHERS)

                      1
                      Jabalpur, Dated : 15-11-2021
                            Shri A.P. Shah, counsel for the petitioner.
                            Shri Anuj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.

Heard on the question of admission.

This petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the validity of the order dated 27.08.2021 (Annexure-P/5) passed

by the Collector, Singrauli. An application under Section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was moved before the Collector along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay. By way of application under Section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 petitioner was seeking revision of the order dated 25.03.1983 which had been passed by the Tehsildar making some entries in the revenue record in respect of the settlement the then took place.

In an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, it is stated that the petitioner came to know about the order passed in March, 1983 only in the

month of August, 2019. Although from the order, it reveals that the said information according to the petitioner came in his knowledge only on 27.03.2019 and then he moved an application before the Singrauli Court on 28.07.2020 that too after almost 16 months from the date of knowledge and the order obtained by the petitioner on 11.08.2019. The Collector has found that no material has been placed by the petitioner before the authority as to what steps has been taken immediately after coming to know about the order dated 25.03.1983. The Collector has also observed it is not acceptable that the order of revenue entries was not in knowledge of the petitioner continuously for the period of 36 years, whereas he is claiming possession over the land in question.

Signature Not During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner has taken SAN Verified

Digitally signed by SMT POONAM MANEKAR Date: 2021.11.17 15:23:47 IST 2 MP-3900-2021 shelter of outbreak of Covid-19 and submits that certified copy of the order could not be taken because of such pandemic and revision could not be filed immediately thereafter.

However, that argument is not convincing for the reason that the knowledge about the order dated 25.03.1983 is sure to be on 27.03.2019 and pandemic Covid-19 came into effect in the month of March, 2020.

Accordingly, for a period of almost one year petitioner did nothing.

High Court in case of Hari Singh vs. Kailash reported in 2015 (1) MPLJ 173 after considering several judgments of the Supreme Court has observed as under :-

"11. On the touchstone of aforesaid consideration, the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act needs to be addressed. Therefore, even if there is an inordinate delay but explanation offered is found to be bona fide and satisfactory in nature, same can be condoned and on the other hand, if the delay is short but the explanation offered is found to be lacking in bona fide, same cannot be accepted as sufficient cause to record satisfaction with regards to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

12. True it is , Section 5 of Limitation Act has been engrafted in the Limitation Act, 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice between parties. As expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub- serves the ends of justice. But at the same time, relativity of expression 'sufficient cause' in its application would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation."

Under such circumstances, the reason assigned for condoning the delay was not found sufficient by the authority and also in my opinion nothing Signature SAN Not Verified wrong has been done by the authority in rejecting the revision on the ground Digitally signed by SMT POONAM MANEKAR Date: 2021.11.17 15:23:47 IST 3 MP-3900-2021

that there is no sufficient reason shown for condoning the delay. When order passed by the authorities is reasoned one and delay is not sufficiently explained, the same cannot be condoned.

Accordingly, the petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed.

                                                                          (SANJAY DWIVEDI)
                                                                               JUDGE

                      pnm




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
SMT POONAM
MANEKAR
Date: 2021.11.17
15:23:47 IST