RAMKARAN SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the rival parties are heard. The basic facts giving rise to the instant case are that assailing the order of Nayab Tehsildar passed on 08.07.1976 allotting lease hold rights to the respondents, an appeal u/S 44 was filed before the SDO sometime in December 2011. An application seeking condonation of delay of about 35 years was annexed with the appeal, explaining the delay by stating on oath that the appellant had no knowledge of passing of the order of Nayab Tehsildar.

(2.) THE SDO while condoning delay of about 35 years, has merely repeated the contents of the application for condonation of delay without entering into the tenability of the same. The Board of Revenue has though passed a detailed order upholding the condonation of delay of 35 years . From the perusal of the order of Board of Revenue, it appears that the Board, persuaded by the fact that the property in question is Government land and the petitioner being villagers is interested in the Government land. The Board further found that the petitioner had no knowledge of grant of lease hold rights in favour of the respondents. The Courts while deciding the tenability of an application for condonation of delay are required to fall back upon the material available in the application seeking condonation of delay. The contents of the application for condonation of delay which is filed herewith as annexure P -9 indicates that a bald statement is made that appellant had no knowledge of the factum of allotment of lease hold rights in favour of the respondent in regard to Government land situated adjacent to the Village in which the petitioner resides. No detail as to how and in what circumstance, the petitioner could not gain knowledge for 35 long years of an event pertaining to a land adjacent to village in which he resides . The said application u/S 5 of the Limitation Act, to say the lease is desperately wanting in material particulars.

(3.) ON the other hand learned counsel for the respondents supporting the order impugned herein has placed reliance on the decision of Single Judge of this Court in case of Mani Bai Vs. Avinash Jamidar & Others reported in 2005 Vol 4 MPLJ Pg 232.