[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shriram Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha ... vs State Of M.P. on 24 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7023
1 WP-595-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 24th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 595 of 2013
SHRIRAM GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kunal Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G.K. Agarwal - Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and
2/State.
Shri Prakash Chandra Chandil - Advocate for the respondents No.
3 to 9.
ORDER
1. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 21.07.1992
(Annexure P/2) passed by the SDO, Gwalior in Case No.19/81-
82/Appeal whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondents No.1 & 2
namely Mangal Singh and Rajveer Singh challenging the order dated
18.02.82 passed by the Tehsildar was partly allowed and the matter was
remitted to the Tehsildar for further consideration in terms of the
directions contained therein.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7023
2 WP-595-2013
3. The petition also challenges the order dated 27.07.2010
(Annexure P/3) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior
Division, Gwalior whereby, the revision preferred by the petitioner
against the order dated 21.07.1992 passed by the SDO was rejected on
the ground of delay.
4. The petition also challenges the order dated 8.2.2012
(Annexure P/4) whereby, the second revision preferred by the petitioner
against the aforesaid two orders was rejected by the Board of Revenue,
Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior.
5. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition as
pleaded in the petition are as under:-
5.1 Vide order dated 18.02.1982, the Tehsildar settled 10.04
hectares of land situated at village Bahodapur, Gwalior in favour of one
Dhanto widow of Munna and Matre son of Godha. The petitioner herein
claims to have purchased the aforesaid land from the said persons vide
registered sale deed dated 30.3.1982 and thereafter divided the land into
plots and sold the same to its members, over which construction is also
said to be raised by the members of the petitioner/society.
5.2 It appears that the order dated 18.02.1982 passed by the
Tehsildar was challenged by the respondents No. 1 and 2 in an appeal
before the SDO, which was partly allowed vide order dated 21.07.1992
and the matter was remitted to the Tehsildar for reconsideration in terms
of the directions contained therein.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7023
3 WP-595-2013
5.3 Being aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the said order before
the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior by filing a revision, which was
dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2010 and thereafter the second revision
preferred before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed vide order
dated 08.02.2012. These are the orders under challenge in the present
writ petition.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
once the petitioner had purchased the land from the erstwhile
Bhumiswami, the appeal preferred by the respondents No.1 and 2 could
not have been decided by the SDO without impleading the petitioner as a
party respondent. He submits that the bare perusal of the order
(Annexure P/2) indicates that the petitioner was not impleaded as party
respondent in the said proceedings and the order dated 21.07.1992 was
passed behind his back.
7. He further submits that though there was some delay on the
part of the petitioner in challenging the said order in a revision before the
Additional Commissioner, Gwalior therefore, a request was made by the
petitioner to exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction against the order
dated 21.07.1992 passed by the SDO but, the Additional Commissioner
declined to exercise such powers of suo motu revision and dismissed the
revision preferred by the petitioner on the ground of delay. He submits
that the Board of Revenue has also erred in not interfering with the
orders passed by the subordinate authorities.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7023
4 WP-595-2013
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents No. 3 to 9 submits that the perusal of the order dated
27.07.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior, clearly
shows that the revision was filed by the petitioner after an unexplained
delay of about 15 years. He further submits that the Additional
Commissioner found the delay on the part of the petitioner to be not
bonafide, as in view of the pending civil litigations recorded in the order
dated 27.07.2010, the plea that the petitioner had no knowledge of the
order dated 21.07.1992 was not accepted. Accordingly, finding no
sufficient cause for condonation of delay, the revision was rightly
rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
10. It is an admitted position of fact that there was a delay of
nearly 15 years on the part of the petitioner in challenging the order
dated 21.07.1992 in a revision before the Additional Commissioner,
Gwalior, Division Gwalior. It is also seen that the petitioner was not
impleaded as a party respondent in the proceedings before the SDO.
However, the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior, in the order impugned
dated 27.07.2010 has observed that after passing of the order dated
21.07.1992, a civil suit was instituted between the parties before the
Third Civil Judge, Class 1, Gwalior seeking declaration of ownership in
Case No.54-A/2005, which was decided vide judgment dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7023
5 WP-595-2013
26.06.2006. For the part of the land, a civil suit for declaration of
ownership was also instituted in the court of Second Additional District
Judge, Gwalior in Case No.16A/1979. With respect to the same land,
another civil suit was instituted in the Court of Ninth Additional District
Judge, Gwalior in Case No.8A/99 and therefore, the Commissioner was
of the opinion that the petitioner had knowledge of the order dated
21.07.1992 passed by the SDO and therefore, the delay in filing the
revision was not found to be bona fide and no sufficient cause was made
out to condone the same.
11. That apart, the Additional Commissioner was also of the
opinion that since the matter was remanded by the SDO vide order dated
21.07.1992, the petitioner herein would have an opportunity to
participate in the proceedings before the Tehsildar. On overall
consideration, the Additional Commissioner rejected the revision vide
order dated 27.07.2010.
12. In the instant writ petition, the reasons assigned by the
Additional Commissioner, Gwalior in declining to condone the delay in
the impugned order dated 27.07.2010 are not challenged on merits and
the petitioner has not even pleaded that the civil suits and the orders
passed therein as quoted in the order dated 27.07.2010 passed by the
Additional Commissioner are not pertaining to the land in question or
are not at the instance of the petitioner.
13. Record also indicates that this Court vide order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7023
6 WP-595-2013
1.5.2014 directed the petitioner to place on record the pleadings on the
basis whereof the orders impugned in the present writ petition are
challenged, however, the said order is not complied by the petitioner till
date.
14. This Court is of the considered opinion that no palpable or
jurisdictional error has been committed by the Additional Commissioner,
Gwalior in rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner vide
impugned order dated 27.07.2010 as affirmed by the Board of
Revenue vide order dated 8.2.2012. The petitioner herein has invoked
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs.
Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 has held that where the view
taken by the subordinate court/tribunal/authority is a possible view, the
same is not ordinarily required to be interfered with. In view of the
above consideration, no case for interference is made out and the petition
is dismissed.
15. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand closed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Van
