Madhya Pradesh High Court
Heeralal vs Smt. Laxmi on 4 August, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20515
1 WP-23843-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 4 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 23843 of 2025
HEERALAL
Versus
SMT. LAXMI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gaurav Kumar Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ashok Kumar Surajmal Garg - Senior Advocate along with Shri
Jitendra Shukla - Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Ayushyaman Choudhary - Advocate for the respondent caveator.
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally
heard.
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure
P/1) passed by the Collector, District Dewas affirming the order dated
24.12.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bagli, District
Dewas whereby application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
preferred by respondent No.1 had been allowed and delay in filing of the
appeal had been condoned.
2. The facts of the case are that an order was passed by the Tehsildar,
District Dewas on 08.09.2018 in respect of mutation over the disputed land.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20515
2 WP-23843-2025
The petitioner on or about 11.09.2024 preferred an appeal under Section
44(1) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Sub Divisional Officer
Bagli, District Dewas against the said order. Since the same was barred by
time an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also preferred
by her for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application was
contested by the petitioner but was allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer
which order has been affirmed by the Collector.
3. In the application for condonation of delay respondent No.1 had
categorically stated that she had purchased the disputed land by way of a
registered sale deed dated 14.08.2013 through the petitioner who had signed
upon the same as witness. She had completely relied upon him. A dispute
with respect to the well over the disputed land arose. The petitioner stated
that he would get the same resolved and asked respondent No.1 to execute a
power of attorney in his favour. As per respondent No.1, instead of getting a
power of attorney executed, the petitioner got a sale deed executed in his
favour from her by playing fraud upon her. Respondent No.1 was never
aware of the same and acquired knowledge only in the year 2022. Her
contention was hence specifically that the order of mutation has been passed
by practising fraud upon her and she was never aware of the same hence the
delay in filing of the appeal occurred which ought to be condoned.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer in view of the categoric statement by
respondent No.1 that she never executed any sale deed in favour of the
petitioner and put her signature believing the same as being put in a power of
attorney did the same which resulted in passing of the order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20515
3 WP-23843-2025
24.12.2024 condoning the delay. The appeal is still pending before the Sub
Divisional Officer. Against the order of Sub Divisional Officer revision was
preferred before the Collector, District Dewas, who by the impugned order
has dismissed the same meaning thereby that he has affirmed the order
condoning the delay in respect of appeal preferred by respondent No.1. The
appeal has to be still decided on merits to ascertain whether the contention as
put forth by respondent No.1 are correct or not.
5. This Court fails to understand that in case the petitioner has legally
got executed the sale deed in his favour from respondent No.1 why should he
be shy in getting the appeal decided on merit. As respondent No.1 has
alleged fraud in the matter and fraud vitiates everything the Sub Divisional
Officer was justified in condoning the delay and allowing the application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Collector was also justified in
dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner.
6. The apex court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra
Shankar Patil reported in 2010 (8) SCC 329 in paragraph 49 held as under:-
"49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following
principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution may be formulated:
(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a
petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court
under these two Articles is also different.
(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ
petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is
substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of
Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been
discussed above.
(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the
orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this
power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal
subordinate to it. In cases where analternative statutory mode of redressal
has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of
this power by the High Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20515
4 WP-23843-2025
(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of
superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this
regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the
principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by
subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court.
(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent
cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can
interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it,
'within the bounds of their authority'.
(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by
exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to
exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.
(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere
in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent
perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where
there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles
of natural justice have been flouted.
(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere
to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the
one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In
other words the jurisdiction
has to be very sparingly exercised.
(i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be
curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of
the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L.
Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261
and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very
doubtful.
(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision,
like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code
(Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High
Court's power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered
that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High
Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227.
(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable
principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu.
(l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High
Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this Article is to
keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the
administration of justice within itsterritory.
(m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to
maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery
of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power
of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that
the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice
remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the
functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court.
(n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be
exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed
for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20515
5 WP-23843-2025
larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of
individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be
unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline
pointed out above.
(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter-
productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and
vitality."
7. In light of the aforesaid judgment as no patent illegality has
been committed by the Sub Divisional Officer / Collector and the
order passed by them do not suffer from any jurisdictional error, this Court
does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Sub
Divisional Officer as well as the Collector in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case. This Court has not observed anything on merits
and the Sub Divisional Officer shall be free to decide the appeal in
accordance with law on merits.
8. The petition as a result of the aforesaid discussion stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
