Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhotelal Jaiswal vs Ramkripal on 14 October, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC--JBP:51267
1 W.P. No. 24545/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 24545 of 2024
CHHOTELAL JAISWAL AND OTHERS
Versus
RAMKRIPAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None for the petitioners.
Shri Gajendra Parashar-
Parashar Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been
filed against the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by Additional Collector,
Singrauli in Case No. 48/Revision/2024-25
48/Revision/2024 25 as well as order dated
24.06.1986 passed by Tehsildar, Chitrangi, District Singrauli in Case
No. 252/A-19(4)/85
19(4)/85-86.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that grand
gran father and father of the
petitioner were in possession of land bearing Arazi No. 8/7, area 1.771
hectare whose new Khasra No. is 499, area 0.10 hectare, Khasra No.
500, area 0.40 hectare.
hectare The non-applicants
area 0.37 hectares in to several parts and recorded the said land as State
land. In fact the predecessors of the petitioners had developed the land
in question and hadd planted many trees. By order dated 24.06.1986 the
Tehsildar granted bhoomiswami rights to one Girdhari under the
Madhya Pradesh Krishi Prayojan Ke Liye Upyog Mai Ki Ja Rahi
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC--JBP:51267
Dakhal Rahit Bhoomi Par Bhoomiswami Adhikaro Ka Pradan Kiya
Jana (Veshesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1984.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners preferred a
revision on 25.06.2024 i.e.
i.e. 38 years after the order dated 24.06.1986
was passed. The Additional Collector, Singrauli by order dated
02.07.2024 passed in Case No. 48/Revision/2024-25
48/Revision/2024 25 dismissed the
revision as barred by time.
4. Since none has appeared for the petitioners, therefore, the grounds
raised by the petitioners in the petition are considered.
5. The petitioners have filed a copy of memo of revision filed by the
petitioners which has been marked as Annexure A/2. It appear
appears that no
application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was filed. Bhoomiswami
rights were given to the predecessor of the respondents way back in the
year 1986. Although, no application under Section 5 of Limitaiton Act
was separately filed but in the Memo
Memo of Revision it was mentioned that
the petitioners came to know about the passing of order dated
24.06.1986 for the first time on 02.06.2024, when
hen the respondents
challenged that they would not allow the petitioners to carry out the
cultivation activities.
activities Even in absence of application for condonation of
delay, if the reasons assigned by the petitioners in the paragraph 4 of
memo of revision is considered as a prayer
pray for condonation of delay,
then still it is clear that no sufficient cause was assigned by the
petitioners for condonation of delay.
6. Section 17 of Limitation Act reads as under:-
under:
mistake (1) Where, in the case of
17. Effect of fraud or mistake,-(1)
any suit or application for which a period of limitation is
prescribed by this Act,-
Act,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC--JBP:51267
(a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of
the defendant or respondent or his agent; or
(b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit
or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of
any such person as aforesaid; or
(c) the suit or application is for relief from the
consequences of a mistake; or
(d) where any document necessary to establish the
right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently
concealed from him,
the period of limitation shall not begin to run until
plaintiff or applicant
applicant has discovered the fraud or the
mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have
discovered it, or in the case of a concealed document,
until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of
producing the concealed document or compelling its
production:
uction:
Provided that nothing in this section shall enable any suit
to be instituted or application to be made to recover or
enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction
affecting, any property which-
which
(i) in the case of fraud, has been purchasepurchased for
valuable consideration by a person who was not a
party to the fraud and did not at the time of the
purchase know, or have reason to believe, that any
fraud had been committed, or
(ii) in the case of mistake, has been purchased for
valuable consideration
consideration subsequently to the transaction
in which the mistake was made, by a person who did
not know, or have reason to believe,
believe that the mistake
had been made, or
(iii) in the case of a concealed document, has been
purchased for valuable consideration by a per person who
was not a party to the concealment and, did not at the
time of purchase know, or have reason to believe, that
the document had been concealed.
(2) Where a judgment-debtor
judgment debtor has, by fraud or force,
prevented the execution of a decree or order within tthe
period of limitation, the court may, on the application of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC--JBP:51267
the judgment-creditor
judgment creditor made after the expiry of the said
period extend the period for execution of the decree or
order:
Provided that such application is made within one year
from the date of the discovery of the fraud or the cessation
of force, as the case may be.
7. Thus, it is clear that unless and until a person prima facie
establishes that in spite of due diligence, he could not discover the fact,
he could not claim that he was not aware of the order under challenged.
8. Except mentioning that the petitioner came to know for the first
time on 02.06.2024, nothing has been done that in spite of due diligence
they could not discover the fact that the order dated 24.06.1986 was
passed by Tehsildar
ar Chitrangi, District Singrauli in case No. 252/A
252/A-
19(4)/85-86.
9. Furthermore, it is the case of the petitioners that they were
cultivating the land. However, nothing has been placed on record to
show that the petitioners were in cultivating possession of the land in
dispute.
10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of considered opinion that
the Additional Collector, Singrauli did not commit any mistake by
rejecting the revision filed by the petitioners as barred by time.
11. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AL
Date: 2024.10.15 18:46:33 +05'30'
