The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rakesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50380
1 WA-1171-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 9 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 1171 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
RAKESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Dr. S. S. Chouhan, G.A. for the State.
Shri Siddharth Gulatee, Senior Advocate with Shri Bhanu Prasad
Yadav, Advocate for respondents.
Shri Ashok Kumar Chourasia, Advocate for respondent No. 9.
ORDER
Per: Pradeep Mittal, J.
Heard on IA No.7027of 2026 for condonation of delay in filing the
present appeal.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that immediately
upon receipt of the impugned order, the matter was examined, legal opinion
was obtained from the Government Advocate, and thereafter the Law
Department granted the necessary approval for filing the present appeal. The
appeal has thus been filed after completing the mandatory administrative and
legal formalities.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 97dfa81e-0710-
4e70-9635-7ff1b5f5c208
Signing time: 7/15/2026
11:31:14 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50380
2 WA-1171-2026
It is further stated that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. It

occurred due to the procedural requirements involved in obtaining approvals
at various levels of the State Government, which are beyond the control of
the appellants. The appellants were never served with notice prior to the
passing of the order dated 07.12.2016 and, therefore, had no knowledge of
the said order. The order came to the knowledge of the appellants only after
the respondents filed W.P. No. 20794/2021 and subsequently Contempt Case
No. 1484/2022 seeking implementation of the said order. Immediately upon
acquiring knowledge of the order dated 07.12.2016, the appellants took
prompt steps by filing a miscellaneous petition, explaining the reasons for
the delay. However, while passing the order dated 16.06.2025, the learned
Single Judge did not adequately consider the explanation regarding the date
of knowledge. Therefore, the delay cannot be treated as inordinate when
computed from the date on which the appellants first became aware of the
order.
The appellants rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Shiv Raj Singh v. Union of India & Others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 865 (Civil
Appeal No. 5867 of 2015), wherein it has been held that a liberal and
pragmatic approach should be adopted while considering delay on the part of
the State, keeping in view the procedural and administrative requirements
involved in governmental decision-making. Accordingly, it is prayed that the
delay being bona fide and sufficiently explained, be condoned.
Having considered the submissions advanced and upon perusal of the
material available on record, we are satisfied that the appellants have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 97dfa81e-0710-
4e70-9635-7ff1b5f5c208
Signing time: 7/15/2026
11:31:14 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50380
3 WA-1171-2026
sufficiently explained the delay in filing the present writ appeal. The record

indicates that the appellants had no prior knowledge of the order dated
07.12.2016, as no notice had been served upon them, and they acted with due
diligence immediately after acquiring knowledge of the said order. The delay
appears to have occurred on account of bona fide administrative and
procedural requirements involved in governmental decision-making and
cannot be attributed to any deliberate negligence or lack of diligence. In
view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Raj
Singh v. Union of India & Others (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 865), we are of the
opinion that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay.
Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed, and the
delay of 208 days in filing the present writ appeal stands condoned.
W.A. No. 1171 of 2026
The present writ appeal has been preferred against the order dated
16.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in M.P. No. 5275/2022,
whereby the miscellaneous petition preferred by the appellants was
dismissed solely on the ground of delay.
2. That, the dispute relates to Government land bearing Khasra Nos.
808/04, 808/05, 805/04, 805/02 and 804/02, situated at Village Gotet, Tehsil
Lidhora, District Tikamgarh. Pursuant to a complaint received during Jan
Sunwai, an enquiry conducted by the revenue authorities revealed that the
private respondents had fraudulently got their names recorded as
Bhumiswamis and had obtained bank loans on the basis of fabricated
documents. Consequently, the Upper Collector, Tikamgarh, by order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 97dfa81e-0710-
4e70-9635-7ff1b5f5c208
Signing time: 7/15/2026
11:31:14 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50380
4 WA-1171-2026
02.06.2016, directed that the land be recorded in the name of the State

Government.
3. That, the private respondents challenged the said order before the
Board of Revenue, which, vide order dated 07.12.2016, allowed the revision
without proper notice to the State authorities and without the original
revenue record being available before it.
4. That, the appellants had no knowledge of the order dated
07.12.2016, as no notice had been served upon them. The said order came to
their knowledge only when the respondents initiated subsequent proceedings
for its implementation. Thereafter, the appellants promptly filed
Miscellaneous Petition No. 5275/2022 before this Court.
5. That, the learned Single Judge dismissed the miscellaneous petition
on the ground of delay without considering the appellants' explanation
regarding the date of knowledge of the order or the serious issues relating to
Government land and the alleged fraud. Hence, the present writ appeal on the
following grounds.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State the learned
Board of Revenue failed to appreciate that the revenue records establish the
land in question as Government land and the impugned order is contrary to
the record.
7. That the order dated 07.12.2016 was passed without notice to the
State authorities and the complainant, in violation of natural justice. That the
Board of Revenue ignored the Tehsildar's enquiry report and material
evidence showing fraudulent mutation and fabricated documents relied upon
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 97dfa81e-0710-
4e70-9635-7ff1b5f5c208
Signing time: 7/15/2026
11:31:14 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50380
5 WA-1171-2026
by the respondents. That the respondents failed to establish any valid title or

lease over the land, whereas the enquiry revealed the alleged documents to
be unauthentic.
8. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in
dismissing the miscellaneous petition on the ground of delay without
considering the appellants' lack of knowledge of the order dated 07.12.2016
and the fact that the matter involves Government land and allegations of
fraud. That the impugned orders are contrary to the facts, evidence on record,
and principles of law, and therefore deserve to be set aside.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Having considered the submissions advanced and the material
available on record, we are satisfied that the appellants have shown sufficient
cause for not preferring the miscellaneous petition within the prescribed
period of limitation.
10. The record reveals that no notice was served upon the State
authorities before the order dated 07.12.2016 was passed. Consequently, the
existence of the said order did not come to the knowledge of the State
authorities at the relevant point of time. It further appears that the
respondents, after a lapse of nearly five years, filed W.P. No. 20794/2021
and obtained an order dated 29.09.2021 directing compliance with the order
dated 07.12.2016. Thereafter, upon the institution of Contempt Case No.
1484/2022 alleging non-compliance of the said order, the State authorities
first became aware of the order dated 07.12.2016. Immediately thereafter,
the State authorities applied for the certified copy, completed the requisite
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 97dfa81e-0710-
4e70-9635-7ff1b5f5c208
Signing time: 7/15/2026
11:31:14 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50380
6 WA-1171-2026
departmental formalities, and filed the miscellaneous petition without any

avoidable delay. In these circumstances, the period of limitation deserves to
be examined from the date on which the State authorities acquired
knowledge of the impugned order, and not merely from the date on which
the order was passed.
11. We further find that the explanation furnished by the appellants
regarding the delay is reasonable, bona fide and duly supported by the
sequence of events placed on record. The delay cannot be attributed to
negligence, deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the State
authorities.
12. An additional circumstance which merits consideration is that the
impugned order dated 07.12.2016 was passed by a Member of the Board of
Revenue against whom several complaints alleging the passing of illegal
orders were subsequently inquired into and found to be substantiated by the
competent authority. Pursuant thereto, the said officer was compulsorily
retired from service by order dated 09.08.2017. Thereafter, the State
Government issued a circular dated 02.11.2019 directing all Collectors in the
State to scrutinize the orders passed by the said officer and, wherever such
orders were found to be legally unsustainable or prejudicial to the interests of
the State, to initiate appropriate legal proceedings for challenging the same
before the competent forum. These undisputed administrative developments
lend further support to the bona fides of the appellants in seeking to
challenge the impugned order.
13. It is well settled that the expression sufficient cause employed in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 97dfa81e-0710-
4e70-9635-7ff1b5f5c208
Signing time: 7/15/2026
11:31:14 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50380
7 WA-1171-2026
Section 5 of the Limitation Act is required to receive a liberal and justice-

oriented interpretation so as to advance substantial justice. Where the
explanation for the delay is plausible, bona fide and free from any element of
deliberate negligence, the court ought to adopt a pragmatic approach rather
than a hyper-technical one.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the
considered opinion that the appellants have satisfactorily explained the delay
in filing the miscellaneous petition. Refusal to condone the delay would
result in the dismissal of the matter on a technical ground without affording
the State an opportunity to challenge an order which, according to the record,
deserves judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, the delay is condoned in the interest
of substantial justice, and the application for condonation of delay stands
allowed in miscellaneous petition.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the
miscellaneous petition solely on the ground of delay without duly
considering the explanation furnished by the appellants regarding the date of
knowledge of the order dated 07.12.2016 and the circumstances under which
the delay had occurred. The approach adopted by the learned Single Judge is
contrary to the settled principle that the expression sufficient cause under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to receive a liberal and justice-oriented
interpretation, particularly where refusal to condone the delay would defeat
substantial justice without adjudication on merits.
16. The explanation offered by the appellants satisfactorily
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 97dfa81e-0710-
4e70-9635-7ff1b5f5c208
Signing time: 7/15/2026
11:31:14 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50380
8 WA-1171-2026
establishes that they had no knowledge of the order dated 07.12.2016 until

the respondents initiated proceedings for its implementation. Immediately
thereafter, the appellants took prompt steps to obtain the certified copy of the
order, complete the requisite departmental formalities, and institute the
miscellaneous petition. The delay, therefore, stands sufficiently explained
and cannot be attributed to any deliberate inaction, negligence or lack of
bona fides on the part of the State authorities.
17. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that the dispute concerns
Government land and involves allegations of fraudulent mutation and
fabrication of revenue records. Furthermore, the order sought to be
challenged was passed by a Member of the Board of Revenue against whom
complaints regarding the passing of illegal orders were subsequently found
to be substantiated by the competent authority, resulting in his compulsory
retirement. The subsequent issuance of a Government circular directing all
Collectors to scrutinize the orders passed by the said officer and to challenge
such orders, wherever necessary, constitutes a relevant circumstance which
lends support to the bona fide action of the appellants in questioning the
validity of the order dated 07.12.2016. These circumstances warranted a
consideration of the matter on merits rather than its rejection on a technical
ground of limitation.
18. Accordingly, the writ appeal deserves to be and is hereby
allowed. The order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
M.P. No. 5275/2022 is set aside. The delay in filing the miscellaneous
petition is condoned, and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 97dfa81e-0710-
4e70-9635-7ff1b5f5c208
Signing time: 7/15/2026
11:31:14 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50380
9 WA-1171-2026
Act stands allowed.

19. Consequently, M.P. No. 5275/2022 is restored to its original file
and is remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication on merits,
in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all
concerned parties. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the controversy, and all questions of fact and law are left open
to be decided independently by the learned Single Judge.
20. Till the final disposal of the aforesaid miscellaneous petition the
parties shall maintain status quo and shall not create any thirty party interest,
transfer, alienate or otherwise, alter the nature, character, possession or status
of the said property in any manner.
21. The writ appeal is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
MSP

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 97dfa81e-0710-
4e70-9635-7ff1b5f5c208
Signing time: 7/15/2026
11:31:14 AM