HARENDRA SINGH (MANMOD) Vs. GOVIND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:

(2.) It is the case of petitioners that petitioner No.1 and respondents are legal heirs of Late Gurdayal Singh Patel. The disputed property i.e. Khasra Nos.317, 404, 502, 665, 667, 671, 674, 716 and 717 admeasuring 12.279 hectares situated at village Hipsli, Tahsil Begumganj, District Raisen, was owned by Late Gurdayal Singh. Gurdayal Singh Patel passed away in the year 1992 and after his death, property was mutated in the name of his widow wife, namely; Smt. Tulsa Bai by order dtd. 27/3/1992. After a lapse of more than 28 years, respondents No.6 to 10 filed an appeal before SDO, Begumganj, District Raisen on 30/8/2018 challenging mutation order dtd. 27/3/1992 on the ground that mutation of name of widow of Gurdayal Singh Patel is erroneous, whereas names of all the legal heirs of Gurdayal Singh Patel should have been mutated. An application under Sec. 5 of Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay of 28 years. The application was opposed by petitioners. Thereafter, respondents No.6 and 8 filed an affidavit before SDO, Begumganj claiming that they have not filed any appeal against mutation order dtd. 27/3/1992 and have also not signed any Vakalatnama. However, it is the case of petitioners that by order dtd. 29/7/2019, SDO, Begumganj, District Raisen has allowed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that respondents No.6 to 10 came to know about mutation order only when Smt. Tulsa Bai passed away in the year 2018. It is the case of petitioners that Smt. Tulsa Bai had executed a registered Will in favour of petitioner No.2 and on the basis of Will, petitioner No.2 moved an application for mutation of his name. The application filed by petitioner No.2 for mutation was allowed by Tahsildar and name of petitioner No.2 was mutated in respect of property in dispute. Order of mutation dtd. 7/12/2019 was also challenged by respondents No.7 to 10 on the ground that Tulsa Bai did not have right to execute a Will. In the meanwhile, petitioners also filed an appeal against order passed by SDO, Begumganj, District Raisen by which delay in filing an appeal was condoned, which too has been dismissed by Additional Collector, District Raisen by its order dtd. 28/12/2020 thereby throttling the justice. It is submitted that later on appeal filed by respondents No.7 to 10 against mutation of name of petitioner No.2 on the strength of Will executed by Smt. Tulsa Bai was dismissed by order dtd. 4/1/2021.

(3.) Challenging the order dtd. 28/12/2020 passed by Additional Collector, Raisen in case No.28/Revision/2019-20 and order dtd. 29/7/2019 passed by SDO, Begumganj in case No.33/Appeal/A-6/2017-18, it is submitted by counsel for petitioners that appeal was filed after 27 years 5 months and 20 days, and therefore, delay should not have been condoned because no sufficient reason was assigned for condonation of delay.