Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 982 (MP)

Gopalsharan v. State of M. P.

2015-09-16

ROHIT ARYA

body2015
ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing the revision petition on the ground of limitation as well as on merits without calling the record of the Courts below. 2. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are to the effect that application under section 5 of the Limitation Act contains the reasons and justifications for having not filed the revision petition within time against the order of Additional Commissioner in appeal, however, the Board of Revenue has not addressed upon the explanation so offered and dismissed the same. Besides, the Board of Revenue even otherwise also dismissed the revision petition on merits without any basis, that too the records of the Courts below were not called for. As such, dismissal of the revision petition on merits, is in conflict with the judgment of Division Bench, reported in 1990 RN 95 (High Court) Sarman and others v. Vidhyaram and others. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that order passed by the Revenue Board is in accordance with law. The delay of one year half months in filing the revision petition has rightly been found to be lacking in material particulars and, therefore, rightly dismissed the revision petition for want of proper explanation. It is further submitted that even on merits the Board of Revenue has passed a reasonable order. Merely as record of the Courts below was not requisitioned, the order impugned cannot be held to bad in law. 4. Heard. 5. It is true that Board of Revenue has limited jurisdiction while entertaining the revision petition against the order of the appellate Court, but if the revision is to be considered on merits, in all fairness, the Board of Revenue ought to have requisitioned the record of the Courts below before negating the contention advanced in that behalf. That has not been done. Besides, while the Board of Revenue is required to address on the question of limitation, explanation offered in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act needs to be addressed and only upon the correct evaluation thereof, the Board of Revenue is required to decide whether the delay caused in filing the revision petition deserves to be condoned or not. 6. 6. In the instant case, the Board of Revenue if was inclined to dismiss the revision on the ground of limitation, the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and the averments made therein ought to have been considered, before formulation of its opinion on merits that has not been done. At the same time, the Board of Revenue while dismissing the revision petition on limitation has also discussed the merits of the revision petition without calling the record of the Courts below. Under such circumstances, the approach of Board of Revenue is found to be not legal and proper. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.11.2009 is set aside. The Board of Revenue is directed to first consider the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and after decision thereupon, if the revision petition is required to be addressed on merits, the same be done after calling for the record of the Courts below providing opportunity to the parties of the revision petition. The parties shall appear before Board of Revenue on 6th October, 2015. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. ..............