Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivam Gupta, vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52806
1 WP-40818-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 16th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 40818 of 2025
SHIVAM GUPTA,
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sourabh Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
ORDER
This petition is filed assailing the order dated 9.9.2025 (Ann.P/1)
whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected on the
ground of delay.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the land bearing khasra no.
956/1/2 was purchased by the petitioner through registered sale deed dated
1.5.2023 and thereafter, mutation was sought on the basis of the sale deed. It
is the case of the petitioner that not only the Tehsildar vide its order dated
24.7.2023 but also the SDO vide its order dated 21.8.2024 have rejected the
application filed for mutation on the basis of the registered sale deed.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal along with an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act explaining the delay but the respondent no.1
has rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and
consequently, rejected the appeal on the ground of delay.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52806
2 WP-40818-2025
3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that along with an appeal,
an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed explaining the
delay in challenging the orders passed by the Tehsildar as well as the SDO.
The said application has not been considered and the appeal has been
dismissed on the ground of delay.
4. Shri Ashish Pratap Singh - Advocate appears on advance notice
for the respondent no.5 and fairly submits that the appeal has been rejected
on the ground of delay. He has no objection, if the matter is remitted back to
the respondents authorities for reconsideration of the matter on merits.
5. Counsel appearing for the respondents / State has opposed the
contentions and has submitted that the appeal has rightly been rejected as the
delay has not been properly explained by the petitioner for condoning the
delay, therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay.
6. However, the fact remains that an application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act can be considered in view of the judgment passed by the
Supreme court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and
another vs. Mst. Katiji and others.
7. Under these circumstances, as the delay has been explained by the
petitioner, therefore, the authorities should have considered the same while
passing the order in the application for condoning the delay and should have
decided the appeal on merits as there is no objection of counsel appearing for
the respondent no. 5 to remand the matter to the respondent no.2 for
reconsideration on merits.
8. In view of the aforesaid, application under Section 5 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52806
3 WP-40818-2025
Limitation Act is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby
condoned. Respondent no. 2 is directed to consider and decide the appeal on
merits.
9. Entire exercise be completed within a period of 90 days from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. Petitioner is at liberty to raise all objections before the authorities
concerned.
11. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
JP
