Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 922 (MP)

Brahmanand v. Kailash Narayan

2015-09-02

ROHIT ARYA

body2015
ORDER 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenge is made to the order dated 26.6.2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners under section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the Board of Revenue on the first date of hearing had taken up the revision petition to ascertain as regards its maintainability, however the same has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. It is submitted that such queer course of action adopted by the Board of Revenue is patently illegal, for the reason that if revision petition was found to be barred by time, opportunity should have been afforded to the petitioner to file an appropriate application seeking condonation of delay, that have not been done. The Board of Revenue in fact, and in effect, has refused to exercise its jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside with direction to the Board of Revenue to permit the petitioner to file an appropriate application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay and after deciding the said application, if delay is condoned, Board of revenue be ordered to proceed to decide revision petition on merits. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that as the revision petition is barred by time and there was no application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition, the Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality in dismissing the revision petition as not maintainable. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Upon perusal of section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, it is explicit that the Board may at any time either on its own motion or on the application made by any party has right to check illegality and propriety of any order or regulating of the proceedings of any Revenue Officer subordinate to it, may call for examining the record of any case pending or disposed of by such an officer and may pass such order in reference thereto, as it thinks fit. 6. Admittedly, the revision petition was filed against the order of the Tahsildar, refusing to mutate land in question in the name of the petitioner. 6. Admittedly, the revision petition was filed against the order of the Tahsildar, refusing to mutate land in question in the name of the petitioner. As such, revision itself is held to be maintainable before the Board of Revenue, therefore, Board of Revenue was not justified having questioned the maintainability of the revision petition. 7. The Board of Revenue being a revisional authority and the highest authority under the M.P. Land Revenue Code while exercising the revisional jurisdiction in the instant case, ought to have exercised the aforesaid jurisdiction with care and caution and should not have been too technical in the matter of dealing with the question of limitation. 8. It is beyond pale of dispute that law of limitation applies to the proceedings before the Board of Revenue. As such, the petitioner has right to file an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition, if the same was found to be barred by time. The rule of fair play did warrant that an opportunity should have been afforded to the petitioner to file such application. More so, when the revision petition was found to be barred only by 22 days. The Board of revenue having denied the aforesaid opportunity and dismissed the revision petition on the ground of limitation, in the opinion of this Court has not acted fairly, bearing in mind the concept of justice, equity and good conscience. Therefore, the impugned order cannot withstand the judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with direction to the Board of Revenue to permit the petitioner to file an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition and thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 10. Petitioner is directed to appear before Board of Revenue within two weeks from today. With the aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed of.