Full Judgment
Writ Petition No :
4239. / 2013 RaMs.and others versus State of MP and others 05.04.2013.
Shri S.D.Mishra for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondents on advance notice.
Challenging the order-dated 9.10.2012 - Annexure P/6, passed by the Board of Revenue, rejecting the revision filed by the petitioners on the ground of delay, this writ petition has been filed.
Petitioners claim to be rustic and poor agriculturists, who were granted Patta by the Government for the land in question.
However, as action was taken exercising the powers of suo motu revision for cancelling the Patta, matter was agitated by the petitioners and finally an order was passed by the Additional Commissioner, on 8.1.2007 in the matter of cancellation of Patta of the petitioneRs.Challenging this order- dated 8.1.2007, passed by the Additional Commissioner, the revision in question was filed before the Board of Revenue after a period of more than 4½ years and on the ground that delay has not been properly explained, the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected, and consequently the revision dismissed.
Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.took me through the reasons given by the petitioners in their application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, as contained in Annexure P/5, and emphasized that the petitioners had entrusted the matter to their counsel, who was practicing in the Divisional Headquarter at Sagar, petitioners were living in a remote village 2 Writ Petition No :
4239. / 2013 RaMs.and others versus State of MP and others in District Tikamgarh and were not in continuous communication with the counsel.
It is indicated in the application that the counsel had assured them that as and when orders are passed and the revision is decided, the petitioners will be intimated about the same.
On 10.9.2012, when the petitioners visited the office of the Patwari in the Tehsil concerned, they were informed about rejection of their application by the Commissioner and it was only then that they came to knot about the order passed.
It is stated that the counsel having not informed the petitioneRs.they were in dark and, therefore, giving the aforesaid explanation the prayer made was to condone the delay.
The Board of Revenue has only indicated that for a period of more than 4½ yeaRs.petitioners kept quiet, they did not take steps for meeting their counsel and finding about the fate of their case and holding that the delay has not been explained, the revision is rejected.
However, while doing so, the Board of Revenue has lost sight of various crucial aspects of the matter like illiteracy of the petitioneRs.the fact of their living in a remote village; and, the fact that the matter pertains to cancellation of Patta granted to them.
Taking note of the totality of the circumstances, interest of justice requires that the revision should have been decided on merits and in rejecting the same on the ground of delay, the learned Board of Revenue has committed an error.
As such, I find much force in the explanation given by the petitioners in their application under section 5 of the 3 Writ Petition No :
4239. / 2013 RaMs.and others versus State of MP and others Limitation Act.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioners are rustic villages, living in a remote village in District Tikamgarh, therefore, there is no reason to dis-believe their statement as is made in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
The order impugned dated 9.10.2012 - Annexure P/6 passed by the Board of Revenue, dismissing the revision on the grounds of delay, is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue to decide the matter on merits after hearing all concerned.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-