SANTOSH SINGH Vs. SUDHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the orders dated 23.04.2019, 18.02.2019, 25.05.2017 and 11.10.2017 in Case Nos. 25/19-20/review, 312/2017-18/appeal passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, 1/v-70/2016-2017 passed by Nayab Tahsildar, Tahsil Indargarh District Datia and 92/appeal/2016-17 passed by SDO, Seondha District Datia respectively.

(2.) The controversy involved in the present case lies in short compass, therefore, instead of mentioning the facts in detail, it is suffice to mention that an application under Section 250 of MPLRC was filed by the respondents against the petitioners on the ground that they have encroached upon their land. The Nayab Tahsildar, Indargarh District Datia by order dated 25.05.2017 passed in Case No. 1/v-70/2016-2017 held that the petitioners have encroached upon the land belonging to the respondents and, accordingly, it was directed that the petitioners should immediately hand over the possession to the respondents. Thereafter, by notice dated 25.05.2017 the Nayab Tahsildar, Tahsil Indargarh District Datia directed the Revenue Inspector, Circle Kudari, Tahsil Indargarh District Datia to immediately comply the order dated 25.05.2017. A copy of this notice was received by the petitioner on 08.06.2017. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioners filed an appeal before the Court of SDO, Seondha District Datia along with an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 25.05.2017 was rejected by the SDO, Seondha District Datia by order dated 11.10.2017. Against the order of the SDO, Seondha District Datia, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Court of Additional Commissioner, which too suffered dismissal by order dated 18.02.2019. The petitioners thereafter filed a review application, which too has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior by order dated 23.04.2019. The orders dated 18.02.2019 and 23.04.2019 have been challenged by the petitioners in this petition. The Court below has come to a conclusion that since the petitioners have failed to give any cogent reason for condonation of delay, therefore, the SDO, Seondha District Datia has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay.

(3.) Challenging the orders passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that there was no inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the SDO, Seondha District Datia. The petitioners were not informed by their counsel about the period of limitation within which the appeal should have been filed and in absence of any ordinate delay, the SDO should have adopted a lenient view while deciding the application for condonation of delay because the civil consequences which are penal in nature are involved as the petitioner has been directed to leave his possession over the land in question.