Kallu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr
2025 Latest Caselaw 212 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kallu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 1 May, 2025

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9650




                                                               1                               WP-4741-2015
                             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                        BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                                     ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2025
                                                 WRIT PETITION No. 4741 of 2015
                                                  KALLU AND OTHERS
                                                        Versus
                                    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                                Shri M P Sraghuwanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Dharmendra Singh
                          Raghuwanshi- Advocate for the petitioners.

                                Shri Deepak Khot - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.

                                                                ORDER

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:-

"(i) That, the order dated 06-03-2013 (Annexure P/ 1) may kindly be quashed.

(ii) That, the order dated 11-08-2009 (Annexure P/2) may kindly be quashed.

(iii) That, the order dated 07-11-2002 (Annexure P/3) may kindly be quashed.

(iv) That, the order dated 16-12-1992 (Annexure P/4) may kindly be quashed.

(v) That, the respondents may kindly be further directed to restore the original Patta of the petitioner which was granted in the year 1982 in their favour.

(vi) That, the otherrelief doing justice including cost be awarded."

2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioners being landless persons in the year 1989 under the policy framed by the State Government for granting of Patta to the landless persons, petitioners were allotted patta of survey no.77 measuring 0.60 hectare situated at village Deegod, Tehsil Kolaras, District Shivpuri. On 10.09.1992 Sub Divisional Officer granted permission for reviewing

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9650

2 WP-4741-2015 the order of granting Patta in pursuance to the order passed by the Collector on 28.11.1992. In pursuance to the aforesaid permission Tehsildar vide order dated 16.12.1992 reviewed its earlier order of granting patta dated 13.04.1989 and cancelled the Patta granted in favour of the present petitioners.

3. The petitioners alleging that they had no knowledge about the cancellation of such patta, preferred an appeal in the year 2002 taking shelter of the fact that when the Patwari of the aforesaid village came to the petitioners' land in the year 2002 that they got the information about their patta having been cancelled. The appeal preferred before the SDO was dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2002 holding the appeal to be hopelessly barred by time. The said order passed in the appeal was challenged by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner in revision after a period of six years which also received the same

fate and the revision was also dismissed as barred by limitation vide order dated 11.08.2009. Challenging the said order passed in second appeal a revision was preferred by the petitioners before Board of Revenue in 2009 which was decided on 6.3.2013 and while dismissing the said revision the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, SDO and Tehsildar were held to be proper. Thereafter, after a period of approximately two years the present petition has been filed on 20.07.2015.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners assailing the aforesaid orders has contended that the only ground which is left to be adjudicated is that whether opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners at the time of reviewing of the order by Tehsildar in the year 1992 or not as from the order passed by the Tehsildar it is not reflected that any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners. Thus in absence of non-adherence to the principle of natural justice, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders deserves to be

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9650

3 WP-4741-2015 quashed and while remitting the matter Tehsildar be directed to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/State Shri Deepak Khot has argued that it is a settled principle of law that delay defeats equity and as the petitioners had slept over their rights for approximately 10 years after passing of the initial order of review and thereafter again for a period of six years in preferring the second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, the issue with regard to non-adherence to the principles of natural justice and not giving any opportunity of hearing has no meaning and cannot be agitated.

6. It has further been argued that even after dismissal of the revision before the Board of Revenue after approximately two years, the present petition has been filed which clearly goes to show the lackadaisical attitude of the petitioners in agitating their grievances before the forum which itself is enough to dismiss the present petition. Thus it is submitted that present petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. In one of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Mrinmoy Maity vs Chanda Koley and others , reported in [2024] 4 S.C.R. 504, it has been held that delay defeats equity. Delay or laches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 and the applicant who approaches the court belatedly ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. It has further been held that discretion to be exercised would be with care and caution, depending upon the facts of the case.

9. In another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Majji

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9650

4 WP-4741-2015 Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and other, reported in (2021) 18 SCC 384 similar analogy has been laid down.

10. In wake of the aforesaid enunciations if facts of the present case are analyzed it could be gathered that the order of review was passed in the year 1992 and the same was challenged in the year 2002 in first appeal. Thus there was a delay of 10 years and since it was not explained properly the first appellate authority dismissed the first appeal on delay itself without going into the merits of the matter. Thereafter, no promptness was shown by the present petitioners in preferring the second appeal and the second appeal was preferred after lapse of more than six years which also made second appellate authority dismissed the second appeal on delay. Another fact which is born is that the present petition is also filed with a delay of approx two years from the date of the order passed by the Board of Revenue in revision and there is no explanation much plausible explanation afforded for the delay caused in preferring the petition. Thus this Court finds that on every occasion the petitioners have caused delay in agitating their rights and as the law is settled that a person who has woken up from deep slumber cannot seek equity, the present petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE

Van