Ramruchi Umariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21672
1 WP-7892-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
th
ON THE 16 OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 7892 of 2026
RAMRUCHI UMARIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shreyas Pandie - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Aishwarya Singh - Dy. G.A. for the respondents/State.
Shri Uday Raj Mishra, Advocate on caveat/respondent No.5.
ORDER
It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the private
respondent No.5 had approached the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),
Nagod District Satna by filing an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act. The said application was considered by the Sub-Divisional
Officer in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.
No.9796/2021 (Ramruchi Urmaliya vs. The State of M.P. and others), dated
01-05-2022. The Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the application filed by the
private respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act vide order dated 12-
03-2024. The aforesaid order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which is
contained in Annexure-P/12, was challenged by the petitioner by filing an
appeal before the Upper Collector, Satna. The said appeal came to be
allowed vide order dated 07-06-2024 (Annexure-P/13), whereby the Upper
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 17-03-2026
13:43:47

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21672
2 WP-7892-2026
Collector remitted the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer with a

direction to pass a fresh speaking order after affording an opportunity of
hearing to all the parties concerned.
2. Pursuant to the order passed by the Upper Collector, the Sub-
Divisional Officer passed another order dated 19-11-2024 (Annexure-P/14).
The said order dated 19-11-2014 was verbatim the same as the earlier order
dated 12-03-2024 contained in Annexure-P/12. This aspect was again
brought to the notice of the Collector, Satna by the petitioner by filing a
revision. However, the Collector dismissed the said revision vide order dated
10-12-2024 contained in Annexure-P/15. Thereafter, the present petitioner
approached the Commissioner, Division Rewa, who also dismissed the same
vide order dated 16-01-2026 contained in Annexure-P/16.
3. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the Collector, Satna
ought to have appreciated that the earlier order dated 12-03-2024 passed by
the Sub-Divisional Officer had already been set aside and, therefore, there
was no occasion for the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass the very same order
again. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer merely reproduced the earlier
order and passed it again on the subsequent occasion. It is submitted that the
Collector failed to take note of this material aspect of the matter. Thus, the
said aspect ought to have been duly considered by the Collector. However,
both the Collector as well as the Commissioner passed their respective orders
without appreciating the fact that identical orders had been passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer on both the occasions.
4. Per contra, the counsel for the private respondent has opposed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 17-03-2026
13:43:47

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21672
3 WP-7892-2026
prayer and submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the higher

authorities, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, have rightly concluded that sufficient reasons had been
assigned by the private respondent explaining the delay in approaching the
Court of law. It is contended that the reasons so assigned were found to be
bona fide and, therefore, the explanation was accepted and the delay was
condoned. Hence, it is submitted that no interference is called for in the
present writ petition.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the parties, a
perusal of the record reflects that the earlier order dated 12-03-2024 passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer, contained in Annexure-P/12, was challenged
before the Upper Collector, Satna. The Upper Collector, Satna set aside the
said order vide order dated 07-06-2024 (Annexure-P/13) and remitted the
matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for reconsideration. However, the
Sub-Divisional Officer again decided the matter on 19-11-2024 (Annexure-
P/14), wherein the entire earlier order dated 12-03-2024 was reproduced in
the subsequent order dated 19-11-2024. Once the order dated 28-03-2024
had already been set aside by the Upper Collector, Satna, there was no
occasion for the Sub-Divisional Officer to reiterate the same order on the
subsequent occasion.
6. A perusal of the record further reveals that the subsequent order is
verbatim same as the earlier order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. This
material aspect has been overlooked by the Upper Collector, Satna as well as
the Commissioner, Rewa Division while dealing with the revision preferred
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 17-03-2026
13:43:47

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21672
4 WP-7892-2026
by the present petitioner. In such circumstances, it would be conducive as

well as expedient in the interest of justice that the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Nagod, District Satna considers the application filed by the private
respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act afresh with due application
of mind.
7. Accordingly, the order dated 19-11-2024 (Annexure-P/14) passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagod District Satna, the order dated 10-12-
2024 (Annexure-P/15) passed by the Upper Collector, Satna, and the order
dated 16-01-2026 (Annexure-P/16) passed by the Commissioner, Division
Rewa, are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Nagod District Satna with a direction to consider the application
filed by the private respondent No.5 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
afresh and to pass a well-reasoned and speaking order in accordance with
law.
8. Let a fresh order be passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer within a
period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
9. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
merits of the case.
10. The petition stands disposed of.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 17-03-2026
13:43:47