Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr.Smt Archana Sharma on 20 June, 2022
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
SA No. 1121 of 2008
(THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs DR.SMT ARCHANA SHARMA)
Dated : 20-06-2022
Shri Divesh Jain, learned Government Advocate for the appellants-State.
Shri Himanshu Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.9609/2008, which is an application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 322 days in filing this second
appeal.
Learned Government Advocate for the appellants State submits that by
way of the suit in question, the proceedings finalized under the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1976")
were challenged by the plaintiff Dr. Smt. Archana Sharma, who is the purchaser
of the land from original Bhoomiswami vide sale-deed dated 05.04.1991 that
too during the pendency of the proceedings under the Act of 1976. Learned
Counsel for the appellants submits that after passing of the judgment and decree
by the District Judge, Bhopal, the time was spent in seeking sanction and
opinion from the Government Advocate which could not be received within the
reasonable period, therefore, the delay has occurred in filing the appeal. He
submits that looking to the stakes involved in the present appeal, the delay of
322 days in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellants have not
filed any document mentioned in application I.A.No.9609/2008 in support of his
case for condonation of delay and even the documents which were demanded
Signature
SAN Not by the respondent by filing application under RTI have not been supplied to the
Verified
Digitally signed by S respondent. He submits that delay in seeking sanction and opinion from the
HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Date: 2022.06.21
12:49:54 IST
Government Advocate cannot be a ground to condone the delay. He relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P.
Vs. Chaitram Maywade, decided on 27.10.2020 in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Diary No.13348/2020 Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It appears from the record that proceedings under the Act of 1976 were
started in the year, 1989 and the proceedings were finalized vide order dated
04.01.2000 (Ex.P/4) passed against the original Bhoomiswamis. This order has
not been challenged by anybody before any Court. The plaintiff has purchased
the land in question even during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings. The
dispute in the present appeal is as to whether possession over the land in
question was taken or not and there is no challenge to the legality of the orders
passed with regard to the ceiling proceedings.
In view of the aforesaid and in light of the decision given by the Apex
Court in the case of M.K. Prasad Vs. P. Arumugam, (2001) 6 SCC 176 ,
decided on 30.07.2001 and looking to the stakes involved in the case, the
application (I.A.No.9609/2008) is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal
stands condoned.
List this case for admission in the week commencing from
18/07/2022.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
sh
