MAREUM Vs. ABDUL LATIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenge is made to the order passed by the Board of Revenue in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of MPLRC.

(2.) BOARD of Revenue by the impugned order dated 05.06.2014 has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents therein and set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 19.09.2013 condoning the delay. Board of Revenue has allowed the appeal on the premise that the discretion exercised by Sub Divisional Officer in the matter of condonation of delay was not justified. It is submitted that law is well settled as regards consideration of application for condonation of delay. The superior authority normally does not to interfere with the discretion exercised unless the same is found to be perverse or de hors the record or the same has not been exercised with judicial mind.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner took this Court through the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer condoning the delay to submit that the discretion exercised by Sub Divisional Officer was a conscious consideration of the material placed on record in support of condonation and said order has been passed judiciously. The Board of Revenue while commenting upon the aforesaid order has in fact adopted hyper technical approach and has not given justifiable reasons in the context laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 wherein Supreme Court has interfered with the discretion exercised by the High Court in the matter of condonation of delay. For ready reference para9 is quoted below: