Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Ramrati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 16 th OF MARCH, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 13749 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. RAMRATI W/O ROSHAN SINGH KAURAV,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, VILL BARA, TEH GOHAD,
DISTT. BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KASHMIR SINGH S/O LATE SHRI ROSHAN SINGH
KAURAV, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, VILLAGE
BARA, TAHSIL GOHAD DIST BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. BALENDRA SINGH S/O LATE SHRI ROSHAN
SINGH KAURAV, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
VILLAGE BARA, TAHSIL GOHAD, DIST BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SATISH SINGH S/O LATE SHRI ROSHAN SINGH
KAURAV, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, VILLAGE
BARA, TAHSIL GOHAD, DIST BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. DALVEER SINGH S/O LATE SHRI ROSHAN SINGH
KAURAV, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, VILLAGE BARA
TAHSIL GOHAD DIST BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. RAMSHANKAR SINGH S/O LATE SHRI ROSHAN
SINGH KAURAV, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
VILLAGE BARA TAHSIL GOHAD, DIST BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SARMAN SINGH S/O LATE SHRI ROSHAN SINGH
KAURAV, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, VILLAGE
BARA, TAHSIL GOHAD DIST BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANTOSH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH DATTA
Signing time: 3/17/2023
6:33:30 PM
2
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. C O L L E C T O R , COLLECTOR DISTT. BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. NAIB TEHSILDAR, BRIT ANDORI TEH. GOHAD,
BHIND, DISTT. BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. BABULAL S/O SHRI MAHARAJ SINGH VIL. BARA
TEH. GOHAD, BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. MAHESH SINGH S/O SHRI MAHARAJ SINGH
KAURAV VIL. BARA TEH. GOHAD, DISTT. BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SIRNAM SINGH S/O SHRI MAHARAJ SINGH
K A U R AV VIL. BARA TEH. GOHAD, BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. VISHAMBHAR SINGH S/O SHRI MAHARAJ SINGH
KAURAV VIL. BARA TEH. GOHAD, DISTT. BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. RAMVAN SINGH S/O SHRI MAHARAJ SINGH
KAURAV VIL. BARA TEH. GOHAD, DISTT. BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
9. KALYAN SINGH S/O SHRI MAHARAJ SINGH
K A U R AV VIL. BARA TEH. GOHAD, BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SIRAJ QURESHI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 3/STATE AND SHRI N.K. GUPTA, LEARNED
SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH Ms. RASHI KUSHWAHA, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS No.4 TO 9)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
With consent, heard finally.
1. The present petition is under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India
being aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by Additional Collector,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH DATTA
Signing time: 3/17/2023
6:33:30 PM
Distt. Bhind, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was rejected on
the ground of delay. Petitioners are further aggrieved by order dated
08.03.2021 passed by Tahsildar, whereby Tahsildar continued to stay the
proceedings under Section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter
referred as 'Code'), despite no stay has been granted by the Civil Court.
2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners
and respondents are joint tenure holder of the disputed property, as preferred in
the petition memo. For partition of the agricultural holding inter-se, petitioners
moved an application U/s.178 of the Code before the Tahsildar. It appears that
meanwhile, private respondents preferred a suit for declaration and permanent
injunction on 20.7.2020. Tahsildar on the basis of pendency of civil suit, stayed
the proceedings vide impugned order dated 08.03.2021. Being aggrieved by
said deadlock, petitioners preferred revision before Additional Collector, Bhind,
but same was dismissed on the point of limitation. Therefore, petitioners have
preferred this petition.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that Court
below erred in not condoning the delay in filing the revision whereas, as per
judgment of Apex Court (In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation,
2022 (1) JLJ 304), limitation between the period 15.3.2020 till 28.02.2022 is
extended and the period in between stands excluded for purposes of limitation
as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial
or quasi-judicial proceedings. Therefore, delay ought to have been condoned in
view of the judgment of the Apex Court, but Court of Additional Collector
ignored this aspect and caused illegality and perversity.
4. At this stage, learned senior counsel for respondents opposed the prayer
but however fairly submits that in view of the judgment of Apex Court,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH DATTA
Signing time: 3/17/2023
6:33:30 PM
limitation was extended.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended with this petition.
6. Considering the rival submissions and the judgment of Apex Court
(supra), it appears that revision was preferred on 29.07.2021 and that period
was under the protection given by the Apex Court and therefore, this aspect
ought to have been considered by the Additional Collector, Distt. Bhind, but he
ignored the same and caused illegality. Therefore, the order dated 27.04.2022
does not stand to legal scrutiny. Hence deserves to be set aside and is hereby
set aside.
7. Resultantly, delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned and
Additional Collector, Distt. Bhind is expected to hear the matter on merits after
hearing the rival submissions and thereafter shall ensure passing a reasoned
order under due intimation to the parties.
8. Parties shall appear before the Additional Collector, Distt. Bhind on
11.04.2023 and thereafter, shall take appropriate directions for further hearing.
It is further expected that Court of Additional Collector, Distt. Bhind shall hear
the rival submissions and decide the case as expeditiously as possible
preferably within two months from the date of appearance of the parties.
9. With the aforesaid direction, petition stands allowed and disposed of in
aforesaid terms.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH DATTA
Signing time: 3/17/2023
6:33:30 PM
