Narayan Singh vs Harishankar

1 WP-38461-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 29 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 38461 of 2024
CNR No.: MPHC030286752024
NARAYAN SINGH
Versus
HARISHANKAR
Appearance:
Shri Abhisehk Singh Bhadauria - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Pryanshu Yadav - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) Impugned order dtd: 16.11.2022 (Annexure P/1)
may kindly be set aside.
ii) The order of Tehsildar may be held to be valid and
binding.
iii) Costs may also be awarded."
The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petition are that the
petitioner had moved an application before the Tahsildar for
demarcation/partition (batankan) and fixation of the field boundary (medh)
in respect of his land situated at village Kanikhedi, Tehsil Ganjbasoda,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

2 WP-38461-2024
District Vidisha. The respondent was impleaded in the said proceedings as a

person having adjoining land. Upon consideration of the application, the
Tahsildar issued notice to the respondent and, as the respondent did not
appear in the proceedings, proceeded ex parte against him. Thereafter, the
matter was referred to the Patwari, who prepared the proposed demarcation
plan and submitted his report. Upon consideration of the report and the
consent expressed by the other concerned adjoining landholders, the
Tahsildar accepted the proposal and passed an order dated 28.12.2018. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent preferred an appeal before
the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ganjbasoda, along with an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.
The respondent contended that he had no knowledge of the
proceedings before the Tahsildar and came to know about the order only in
November 2021, when he approached the Patwari and noticed discrepancies
in the demarcation plan and the recorded area of the land. He accordingly
sought condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.
The Sub-Divisional Officer, vide order dated 30.05.2022, rejected the
application for condonation of delay, observing that notice had been issued
to the respondent in the original proceedings and the record indicated his
signature on the notice. The Sub-Divisional Officer found that the
respondent had failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation for the substantial
delay in approaching the appellate authority and, consequently, declined to
entertain the appeal on merits.
The respondent thereafter preferred a revision before the Additional
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

3 WP-38461-2024
Collector, District Vidisha. Vide the impugned order dated 16.11.2022, the

Additional Collector interfered with the order passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer and remitted the matter for further consideration, thereby permitting
the respondent to pursue his appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner has approached this Court, contending that the revisional authority
could not have interfered with the order rejecting the application for
condonation of delay without recording a finding that the reasons assigned
by the Sub-Divisional Officer were legally unsustainable and without there
being any sufficient explanation for the delay of approximately three years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had
been duly served with notice in the original proceedings before the Tahsildar
and, despite having knowledge of the proceedings, chose not to appear. It is
contended that the order dated 28.12.2018 was passed after consideration of
the Patwari's report and the consent of the concerned adjoining landholders.
The respondent subsequently approached the appellate authority after an
inordinate delay of approximately three years, without furnishing any cogent
or satisfactory explanation covering the said period. Learned counsel further
submits that the revisional authority, merely on the consideration that the
respondent ought to be afforded an opportunity of hearing on merits, could
not have disregarded the requirement of explaining the delay. It is, therefore,
contended that the impugned order, insofar as it sets aside the rejection of the
application for condonation of delay and remits the matter for further
proceedings, is unsustainable in law.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

4 WP-38461-2024
respondent was not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing in the

original proceedings and the demarcation proceedings were conducted ex
parte. It is contended that the demarcation plan suffers from discrepancies
concerning the relevant survey numbers and the area of the land, and the
respondent came to know about the impugned order only when he
approached the Patwari and examined the relevant revenue records. On these
grounds, learned counsel supports the order passed by the Additional
Collector and submits that the respondent ought to be permitted to contest
the appeal on merits.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the material available on record, it appears that the dispute raised
by the respondent before the appellate authority primarily concerns the
demarcation and fixation of the field boundary in respect of the relevant
survey numbers. The record further indicates that the demarcation order
dated 28.12.2018 has not been challenged insofar as it relates to Survey
No.91/1/1, and the relief concerning the said survey number has attained
finality. The controversy surviving for consideration is, therefore, confined to
the Survey No.7/1 and the consequential challenge to the demarcation
affecting the said land.
This Court is conscious of the submission advanced on behalf of the
respondent that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing in the original
proceedings. Such an objection, if established on the basis of the relevant
record, may constitute a ground for examining the legality of the proceedings
affecting his rights. However, the question of whether the respondent should
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

5 WP-38461-2024
be permitted to pursue such a challenge cannot be considered in isolation

from the statutory requirement of explaining the delay in approaching the
appellate authority.
It is a settled principle that, where an appeal is presented beyond the
prescribed period of limitation, the appellant seeking condonation of delay
must demonstrate sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within time.
The length of delay may not, by itself, be decisive; however, the explanation
furnished for such delay must be considered on its own merits. The mere
assertion that the matter deserves consideration on merits or that an
opportunity of hearing ought to be granted cannot, in the absence of a
satisfactory explanation for the delay, constitute sufficient justification for
condoning an inordinate delay.
In the present case, the order of the Tahsildar was passed on
28.12.2018, whereas the respondent approached the appellate authority in
December 2021, after a delay of approximately three years. The explanation
furnished by the respondent was that he acquired knowledge of the order
only in November 2021 and thereafter took steps to obtain a copy of the
same. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer, upon examining the record,
specifically noticed that notice had been issued to the respondent in the
original proceedings and the notice bore his signature. The application for
condonation of delay was rejected on the ground that the explanation
furnished by the respondent was not satisfactory.
In such circumstances, the revisional authority was required to
examine whether the reasons recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

6 WP-38461-2024
rejecting the application for condonation of delay suffered from any legal

infirmity warranting interference. The revisional authority could not have set
aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and remitted the matter merely
on the general consideration that the respondent should be afforded an
opportunity to contest the appeal on merits, without adequately addressing
the delay of approximately three years and the absence of a satisfactory
explanation therefor.
The right to an opportunity of hearing, though an important facet of
the principles of natural justice, does not dispense with the requirement of
satisfying the conditions prescribed for entertaining a time-barred appeal.
The plea of want of opportunity in the original proceedings and the question
of condonation of delay are distinct considerations. While the former may be
relevant to the merits of the proposed appeal, it cannot, by itself, dispense
with the latter. In the present case, the respondent was required to explain
why the appeal could not be preferred within the prescribed period,
particularly when the original record was stated to contain a notice bearing
his signature.
This Court further finds that the respondent has not demonstrated any
sufficient or cogent explanation for the entire period of delay. The revisional
authority, while interfering with the order dated 30.05.2022, did not
adequately deal with the reasons recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer for
rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The
impugned order, to the extent that it permits the respondent to pursue the
delayed appeal without a legally sustainable determination regarding
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

7 WP-38461-2024
condonation of delay, therefore, cannot be sustained.

Consequently, the petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned
order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the Additional Collector, District Vidisha,
in Revision No. 38/2022–23 is hereby set aside to the extent that it interferes
with the rejection of the respondent's application for condonation of delay
and permits further proceedings in the delayed appeal. The order dated
30.05.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ganjbasoda, rejecting the
application for condonation of delay, is restored.
It is clarified that the present order is confined to the question of
condonation of delay and the legality of the revisional authority's
interference therewith. No independent adjudication on the merits of the
objections concerning Survey No.7/1 is being undertaken in the present
proceedings. The order of the Tahsildar dated 28.12.2018, insofar as it relates
to Survey No. 91/1/1 and has not been challenged further, shall remain
undisturbed.
Accordingly, the petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM