Condonation of inordinate delay is impermissible when the plea of lack of knowledge is contradicted by prior judicial admissions.

The petitioner’s predecessor, Late Kunwar Devi, obtained a mutation order for agricultural land on 30.12.2015, which was affirmed by the Additional Collector on 28.07.2017

Consequently, the Tehsildar implemented these orders on 22.06.2018, correcting the revenue records

Meanwhile, Respondents No. 3 to 5 filed a civil suit (No. 139-A/2016) claiming rights over the same property, which was dismissed in 2019 and affirmed in appeal in 2022, concluding they had no title

On 10.01.2025, nearly seven years later, the respondents challenged the Tehsildar’s 2018 order before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). They claimed they only gained knowledge of the order on 09.01.2025

The SDO condoned the delay without specific findings of "sufficient cause," and the Additional Collector dismissed the petitioner's revision against this condonation on 24.07.2025

1. Whether the revenue authorities exercised their jurisdiction arbitrarily by condoning an unexplained delay of nearly seven years under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

2. Whether the respondents' plea of "lack of knowledge" was sustainable in light of their own pleadings in prior civil litigation

The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which requires the applicant to demonstrate "sufficient cause" for delay

It emphasized the principle that while "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal, justice-oriented interpretation to avoid defeating substantive justice, it cannot be used to condone gross negligence or validate demonstrably false explanations that render the law of limitation otiose

The court also relied on the principle of Public Policy, which dictates that limitation ensures certainty and finality in litigation, preventing the unsettling of crystallized rights through stale claims

The Court found that the respondents had categorical knowledge of the revenue proceedings as early as 2016, evidenced by paragraph 3 of their own civil suit plaint, where they specifically mentioned the SDO's 2015 mutation order and the subsequent appeal

Therefore, their claim of discovering the Tehsildar's consequential 2018 order only in 2025 was factually incorrect and lacked bona fides

The Court reasoned that the SDO acted mechanically by failing to record an objective satisfaction of "sufficient cause" and by ignoring the finality of the Civil Court judgments which had already negatived the respondents' title

The Court held that a "liberal approach" cannot save a party who "approbates and reprobates" regarding their knowledge of judicial records

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders of the SDO (24.04.2025) and the Additional Collector (24.07.2025). Consequently, the statutory appeal filed by Respondents No. 3 to 5 against the Tehsildar's 2018 order was dismissed as barred by limitation