Premkishore vs Commissioner
2023 Latest Caselaw 15604 MP

                                                       1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                          ON THE 22 nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                          WRIT PETITION No. 24029 of 2021

                          BETWEEN:-
                          PREMKISHORE S/O GAYADEEN, AGED ABOUT 75
                          Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O VILLAGE
                          SOHAWAL TEHSIL JAWA DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                              .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI NEERAJ SINGH CHOUHAN - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          1.    COMMISSIONER THR. COMMISSIONER REWA
                                DIVISION DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVE.) TEONTHER
                                DIST. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    RAJENDRA PRASAD S/O SHRI GAYADEEN, AGED
                                ABOUT 53 YEARS, VILL.-SAHAWAL, TEH. JAWA
                                DISTT.-REWA(M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    RAMSIYA S/O GAYADEEN, AGED ABOUT 61
                                YEARS, VILL.-SAHAWAL,TEH-JAWA DISTT.-REWA
                                MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    VISHAMBHAR S/O LT. SHRI BRIJ KISHORE, AGED
                                ABOUT 44 YEARS, VILL.-SAHAWAL, TEH. JAWA
                                DISTT.-REWA(M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          6.    VINOD S/O LT.SHRI BRIJ KISHOR, AGED ABOUT
                                41 YEARS, VILL.-SAHAWAL, TEH. JAWA DISTT.-
                                REWA(M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          7.    MANOJ S/O LT. SHRI BRIJ KISHORE, AGED
                                ABOUT 38 YEARS, VILL.-SAHAWAL, TEH. JAWA
                                DISTT.-REWA(M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          8.    DILIP S/O LT. SHRI BRIJ KISHORE, AGED ABOUT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 9/26/2023
10:47:38 AM
                                                           2
                                   37 YEARS, VILL.-SAHAWAL, TEH. JAWA DISTT.-
                                   REWA(M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          9.       BOOTNY DEVI W/O LT SHRI BRIJ KISHOR, AGED
                                   ABOUT 53 YEARS, VILL.-SAHAWAL, TEH. JAWA
                                   DISTT.-REWA(M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                          (STATE BY SHRI SHIVAM HAZARE - PANEL LAWYER
                          RESPONDENT NO.3 BY SHRI ANAND KUMAR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE )

                                   This petition coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
                          following:
                                                               ORDER

This writ petition has been filed being aggrieved of the order dated 27.10.2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Teonthar, District Rewa in

Case No.0095/A-27/2017-18 and order dated 27.09.2021 passed by Commissioner, Rewa condoning the delay of over 23 years in filing the case by appellant - Rajendra Prasad in a cryptic manner condoning delay without giving any reason to do so.

2. It is submitted that the only ground on which impugned order of partition passed by the Tehsildar has been set aside is that within 8 days, proceedings of partition were completed whereas one month's time should have been given.

3. Shri Neeraj Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order is cryptic without assigning any reason for condonation of delay. The order condoning the delay cannot be said to be a just and correct order.

4. Shri Anand Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.3- Rajendra Prasad has placed on record provisions contained in Section 178 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity "MPLRC"). As far as provisions contained in Section 178 of MPLRC are concerned, it does not prescribe any period of

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATEESH KUMAR SEN Signing time: 9/26/2023 10:47:38 AM

limitation. In the commentary, it is provided that proclamation should not give less than 30 days. It is mentioned referring to judgment in the case of Shriram Sharma Vs. Brindawan, 1968 RN 611 that in case where less than 30 days' time is given but objections are filed, only the fact of giving less time will not vitiate the partition proceedings. Thus, as per the narration furnished by Shri Anand Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.3, it is evident that 30 days' time not being adhered to will not vitiate the proceedings if parties were properly noticed and they had appeared before the authority.

5. It is evident from the copy of note-sheet before the concerned Tehsildar in Case No.30/A-27/1994-95 that order sheet was signed by Premkishore, Ramsiya and Rajendra Prasad. Even on the Batwara Pulli, signatures of Premkishor, Ramsiya and Rajendra Prasad are available. Thus, firstly, respondent No.3 before the Sub Divisional Officer was required to show that his signatures were obtained fraudulently. No such evidence was led to prove that his signatures were obtained on Batwara Pulli in a fraudulent manner.

6. There is no discussion that why respondent No.3, who appealed before Sub Divisional Officer, was sleeping for about 23 years before filing the appeal before Sub Divisional Officer. There is no mention of this fact that when signatures of appellant - Rajendra Prasad were available on Batwara Pulli as well as the order sheet of Tehsildar, then how it can be said that he had no

knowledge of the partition. Another aspect is as has been discussed above that when all the three interested parties who are members of the same family were available and appeared before Tehsildar and put their signatures on the note- sheet as well as on Batwara Pulli, then whether it was still required for the Tehsildar to wait for 30 days' period. This is already answered in the Case of Shri Ram (supra) as has been referred to in the extract of book produced by Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATEESH KUMAR SEN Signing time: 9/26/2023 10:47:38 AM

Shri Anand Kumar Shukla and therefore, when all the parties to the partition proceedings were available, then merely passing of an order before expiry of 30 days will not vitiate the partition proceedings and thus, Sub Divisional Officer erred in approaching the subject and passing the impugned order. The order of Sub Divisional Officer is both cryptic and arbitrary inasmuch as it is devoid of any reason to condone delay. Therefore, such arbitrary and non-speaking orders cannot be given seal of approval. The same are hereby quashed. 7 Accordingly, petition is allowed and is disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Sateesh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATEESH KUMAR SEN Signing time: 9/26/2023 10:47:38 AM