Condonation of delay for challenging lease cancellation is impermissible where Patta was obtained by suppressing material facts.

The Petitioner was granted a settlement Patta (lease) and Bhumiswami rights for 3 acres of government land in Village Bangapal in 1986

In 1995, following a complaint and a report from the Tehsildar alleging that the Petitioner had suppressed her true residence (Jagdalpur) to obtain the land, the SDO Revenue cancelled the Patta via an ex-parte order

The Petitioner claimed she only discovered the cancellation in 2021 when attempting to dig a borewell

She subsequently filed an appeal before the Collector, Bastar, which was dismissed in 2023 due to an unsuccessful application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

This dismissal was upheld by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, and the Board of Revenue

The Petitioner challenged these concurrent findings before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the SDO Revenue had the jurisdiction to cancel the Patta suo motu and whether the cancellation violated the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the subordinate revenue courts erred in refusing to condone the 25-year delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

Article 227 of the Constitution of India regarding the limited supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts over subordinate courts and tribunals

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which requires a party to show "sufficient cause" for delay

The administrative principle that the suppression of material facts (fraud) or non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria (residency requirements) at the time of a government grant vitiates the legality of the allotment

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s claim of ignorance for 25 years was unsubstantiated by the record; she failed to produce any revenue documents showing her name mutated in the records between 1995 and 2021, relying only on a Rin Pustika from 1986

Regarding natural justice, the Court noted that the SDO had issued notices, but they returned un-served because the Petitioner did not reside at the provided village address

The Court found that the settlement policy required the allottee to be a resident of the specific village, a condition the Petitioner breached by suppressing her residency and property holdings in Jagdalpur

The Court reasoned that since the underlying grant was obtained through the suppression of material facts, and because there were concurrent findings of fact by three lower authorities, there was no jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227

The High Court affirmed the orders of the Board of Revenue and the Collector, Bastar, and dismissed the writ petition