RAM KHELAWAN GUPTA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 15.4.2013, (Ann. P-12), passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior in Revenue Revision No. 49/Two-2013, whereby dismissing his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the aforesaid revision filed against the order dated 10.1.2006 passed by the Upper Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa in Revenue Appeal No. 166/Appeal/99-2000 has been dismissed without entering on any of the merits of the matter.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that Balmiki Prasad Gupta, (since deceased), the predecessor in title of respondent nos. 5 to 9 had filed an application against the petitioner and respondent no. 10 for partition of agricultural land in the court of respondent no. 4, Tahsildar. The same was registered as Revenue Case No. 31/A/27/95-96. In such case, the reply (Ann. P-2) of admission was filed on behalf of petitioner and respondent no.10. On consideration, vide order dated 31.8.1996, (Ann. P-4) proposed partition of the alleged revenue land according to Batwara fard was accepted. Such order of Tahsildar was challenged on behalf of private respondent no. 10 in appeal before the respondent no. 3 SDO through revenue appeal no. 118/98-99. On consideration, vide order dated 6.11.1999 (Ann. P-5), such appeal was allowed in part and after setting aside the order of Tahsildar the case was remitted back with some directions to the Tahsildar to decide afresh.

(3.) The aforesaid order of SDO passed in appeal was challenged by the aforesaid Balmiki Prasad Gupta, the predecessor of respondent nos. 1 to 9 before the respondent no. 2, Upper Commissioner Revenue by way of Second Appeal No. 166/Appeal/1999-2000. On consideration vide order dated 10.1.2006, (Ann. P-7) such appeal was allowed and the order of SDO 6.11.1999 (Ann. P-5) was set aside. Being dissatisfied with such order of second appeal, the petitioner approached the Board of Revenue with impugned Revision on 4.1.2013. Such revision was filed alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the same because same was filed at belated stage after more than six years from the prescribed period of limitation to file the revision. In such application, inter alia it is stated that the petitioner was under the influence of his brothers Balmiki Prasad Gupta and respondent no. 10, Hanuman Prasad Gupta. Pursuant to that he had signed some papers and the Vakalatanama and subsequent to it, taking disadvantage of the said, said Balmiki Prasad Gupta and Hanuman Prasad Gupta had misused such papers contrary to his interest. It is further stated that in pendency of some other case before the Tahsildar regarding amendment/modification of the map of the land, the Halk Patwari had informed him on 25.12.2012 regarding aforesaid order of the Upper Commissioner. On coming to know such fact immediately he rushed to the Court of Commissioner, Rewa and obtained certified copy of the impugned order of Commissioner on dated 31.12.2012 and thereafter filed the impugned revision on 4.1.2013 and in such premises, the prayer for condoning the alleged delay in filing the revision is made.