Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shree Lal vs Additional Commissioner, Gwalior on 6 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28186
1 WP-3215-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 3215 of 2007
SHREE LAL
Versus
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, GWALIOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Janamjay S.Tomar - Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri
Raghvendra Dixit - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.Padamshree Agrawal - Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1, 2
& 4/State.
None for respondent No.3, though served.
Reserved on : 30/10/2025
Delivered on : 06/11/2025
ORDER
The instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenges the order dated 15.02.2007 (Annexure-
P/2) passed by respondent No.2 -Additional Collector Datia, District
Datia (M.P.), whereby the revision preferred by respondent No.3 against
the order dated 28.07.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer
condoning the delay in filing the first appeal by the petitioner was
allowed and the order dated 28.07.2006 was set aside.
2. The petition also challenges the order dated 09.07.2007
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28186
2 WP-3215-2007
(Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.1 - Additional Commissioner
Gwalior, Division Gwalior, whereby the revision preferred by the
petitioner against the order dated 15.02.2007 passed by respondent No.2
has been dismissed.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are as
under:
3.1Vide order dated 30.12.1999 passed by the Naib Tehsildar,
certain government lands bearing Khasra Nos.202 and 205 situated at
Village Pepri came to be allotted to respondent No.3.
3.2As per the case of the petitioner, since he was in long
possession of the aforesaid land and was affected by the allotment order
dated 30.12.1999, he challenged the same in an appeal under Section 44
of the Land Revenue Code, 1959, before the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sewda, District Datia. Since the petitioner was not the party to the
proceedings before the Tehsildar and was unaware of the order dated
30.12.1999, he also moved applications seeking leave to file appeal and
also an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking
condonation of delay of about 6 years in filing the appeal on the ground
that he gained knowledge about the order dated 30.12.1999 only in the
year 2006, when he contacted the Patwari for getting his name recorded
on the basis of long possession.
3.3The application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to appeal
and condonation of delay came to be allowed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer vide order dated 28.07.2006 and the appeal was fixed for final
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28186
3 WP-3215-2007
hearing.
3.4The aforesaid order dated 28.07.2006 came to be challenged
by respondent No.3 in a revision before the Additional Collector, Datia
on the ground that the petitioner was not belonging to the SC/ST
Category. The land in question was meant for allotment for the members
of SC/ST Category and the petitioner was not also a landless person and
therefore, the petitioner was unaffected by the order dated 30.12.1999.
The Sub-Divisional Officer has erred in allowing the application
seeking leave to file appeal and condoning the delay.
3.5The revision preferred by respondent came to be allowed by
the Additional Collector, Datia vide order dated 15.02.2007. The
petitioner thereafter challenged the same in a revision before the
Additional Commissioner Gwalior, Division Gwalior, the same was
dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2007. These are orders impugned in
the instant writ petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
Additional Collector, Datia, has erred in allowing the revision preferred
by respondent No.3 by considering the merits of the case. He submits
that the merits of the case, since were not considered by the Sub-
Divisional Officer while granting leave to appeal and while considering
the delay, the only issue which was open for consideration by the
Additional Collector was the correctness of the order of condonation of
delay. The Collector ought not to have examined the merits of the claim
of respondent No.3. He further submits that even the Additional
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28186
4 WP-3215-2007
Commissioner Gwalior, Division Gwalior while considering the revision
preferred by the petitioner has not considered the aforesaid legal aspect
while rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner. Accordingly, he
submits that the impugned orders dated 09.07.2007 and 15.02.2007
passed by the Additional Commissioner Gwalior and the Additional
Collector, Datia deserves to be set aside.
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
i n Civil Appeal No.317/2025; H. Guruswami and Others Vs. A.
Krishnaiya since deceased by LRs.
6. Though the respondent No.3 is represented and a return on his
behalf has been filed but none appeared for respondent No.3 at the time
of final hearing of the matter. This Court, however, took into
consideration the averments made in the reply filed by respondent No.3.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1, 2 &
4/State supports the order impugned in the instant writ petition.
8. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the
parties.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Records indicate that vide order dated 28.07.2006, the Sub-
Divisional Officer, had not only condoned the delay but also allowed the
application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to file appeal against the
order dated 30.12.1999 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Circle Indargarh,
Tehsil Sewda, whereby the land in question was settled in favour of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28186
5 WP-3215-2007
respondent No.3. While considering the application seeking leave to
appeal, the authority granting leave to appeal is required to record prima
facie reasons for granting leave to appeal.
11.The perusal of the order dated 28.07.2006 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer indicates that the contentions of the petitioner as well
as respondent No.3 have been recorded, but no reasons have been
assigned by the Sub-Divisional Officer either for granting leave to the
petitioner or for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The operative
portion of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer reads as
under:
" उभय प तक उपरांत करण प र थितय तथा नैसिगक याय िस ांत के
म े नज़र एपेलट क अपील अंदर िमयाद वीकार क जाती है एवम ् अपी.
अनुमित आवेदन वीकार कया जाता है । वा ते अंितम तक हे तु।"
12.There is no dispute to the contention advanced on behalf of the
petitioner that while considering the issue of condonation of delay, the
merits of the case ought not to have been considered by the revisional
authority. However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case,
vide order dated 28.07.2006, since the Sub-Divisional Officer had not
only condoned the delay but also granted leave to the petitioner to file
appeal, for which, prima facie for accepting the stand of the petitioner or
rejecting the stand of respondent No.3, some reasons were essentially
required to be recorded which are totally lacking in the order dated
28.07.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.
13.The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer does not fulfill the
requirement of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28186
6 WP-3215-2007
SCC 496, which contemplates that the reasons are the heartbeat of
orders passed by the judicial/quasi-judicial authorities.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra
Sankla Etc. V. Vikram Cement Etc. [AIR 2009 SC 713], has held as
under:
"81. The power of superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution conferred on every High Court over all courts
and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it
exercises jurisdiction is very wide and discretionary in nature.
It can be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to meet the ends of
justice. It is equitable in nature. While exercising supervisory
jurisdiction, a High Court not only acts as a court of law but
also as a court of equity. It is, therefore, power and also the
duty of the Court to ensure that power of superintendence
must "advance the ends of justice and uproot injustice"."
15.Further, in the case of Ajay Singh Vs. State of Chhatisgarh
reported in (2017) 3 SCC 330, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under
:
"23. Article 227 of the Constitution reads as follows:........
The aforesaid Article confers power of superintendence on
the High Court over the courts and tribunals within the
territory of the State. The High Court has the jurisdiction and
the authority to exercise suo motu power."
16. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Central Bank
of India Vs. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Allahabad and
Others (M.P. No.5688/2019) , has held as under:
"Thus, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, this Court can exercise jurisdiction to
meet the ends of justice and while doing so it can also act as a
Court of equity. The purpose is to advance the ends of justice
and uproot injustice. Such power can be exercised even suo
moto particularly when there has been an apparent failure of
justice. The paramount consideration is paving the path of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28186
7 WP-3215-2007
justice and removing any obstacles therein. Tested on the
anvil of the aforesaid principles, we find that before the
authorities below there has been a total failure of justice. The
proceedings have been conducted in such a manner that ends
of justice have been defeated. The parties have acted in such a
manner that the truth has remained suppressed and
determination has been made only on the basis of skeletal
facts brought on record which were wholly insufficient for a
fair and proper adjudication of the controversies involved.
Thus, the orders under challenge cannot be allowed to stand."
17.The above quoted judgments clearly postulates that this Court
while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, has the jurisdiction and authority to exercise suo motu powers and
it is the duty of this Court to ensure the power of superintendence is
advanced to meet the ends of justice uproot injustice. Therefore, it is
open for this Court to consider the legality of order passed by the first
appellate authority (SDO) as well though not impugned in the instant
writ petition.
18.In view of the above, while setting aside the order dated
09.07.2007 passed by the Additional Commissioner Gwalior and the
order dated 15.02.2007 passed by the Additional Collector, Datia, for
reasons stated hereinabove and discussion made, this Court is also
inclined to set aside the order dated 28.07.2006 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside, the
application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to file appeal against the
order dated 30.12.1999 passed by the Tehsildar and the application filed
by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking
condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28186
8 WP-3215-2007
30.12.1999 stands restored. The Sub-Divisional Officer shall consider
and decide the said applications filed by the petitioner afresh in
accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to respondent
No.3 within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified
copy of the order passed today.
19.With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
20.Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Adnan
