Condonation of 15-year delay without notice or hearing to the affected party violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner society purchased 0.30 hectares of land in Survey No. 237 via a registered sale deed in 2001

Following partition proceedings where all co-owners (including the vendor's predecessors) gave consent, a final partition order was passed by the revenue authority on 23.07.2009

In 2025, approximately 15 years later, Respondent No. 1 challenged this partition order before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO)

On 07.02.2025, the SDO condoned the delay on the very first date of hearing without issuing notice to the petitioner or providing an opportunity to file objections

The petitioner's subsequent revision before the Additional Collector was dismissed on 29.01.2026, primarily on technical grounds regarding a date error in the memo

1. Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer committed a jurisdictional error by condoning an inordinate delay of 15 years without issuing notice or affording a hearing to the affected party

2. Whether the Revisional Authority erred in dismissing the revision on technical grounds instead of examining the substantive violation of natural justice

The court applied the fundamental Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem)

It relied on the settled legal principle that an application for condonation of delay is not a mere "empty formality" because the expiration of limitation creates valuable "accrued rights" in favor of the opposite party

Consequently, any judicial or quasi-judicial authority exercising discretion to condone extraordinary delay must ensure the affected party is heard to evaluate if "sufficient cause" exists

The High Court found that the SDO’s order dated 07.02.2025 was patently illegal as it bypassed the mandatory procedure of notifying the petitioner before stripping them of the finality obtained by the 2009 partition order

The Court reasoned that the merits of Respondent No. 1’s explanation for the 15-year delay—such as pending litigation (Second Appeal No. 211/2006) or bank mortgage issues—could only be adjudicated after a contested hearing, not ex-parte

Furthermore, the Court critiqued the Revisional Authority for dismissing the revision based on a "technical error" in the date mentioned in the memo, holding that the authority should have looked at the "substance of the challenge" which clearly targeted the illegal condonation of delay

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders dated 29.01.2026 (Additional Collector) and 07.02.2025 (SDO). The matter was remitted back to the SDO with a direction to reconsider the delay condonation application after issuing notice to all affected parties, granting them the opportunity to file replies, and passing a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law