Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kailash Jain vs Devendra Yadav on 27 August, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:14384
1 MP-1824-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 27th OF AUGUST, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 1824 of 2023
KAILASH JAIN
Versus
DEVENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Devansh Mishra - Advocate for respondents No.1, 2 and 4.
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :
(i) A writ of certiorari or any other appreciate writ, order, or any direction may kindly be issued to quash of order Annexure P-1 dated 11.01.2023.
(ii) A writ of certiorari or any other appreciate writ, order, or any direction may kindly be issued to quash of order Annexure P-2 dated 31.01.2022.
(iii) An appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued to allow the application Annexure P-8 filed by petitioner under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
(iv) Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.
It is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 06.02.2014, the Tahsildar has allowed the petitioner's application and the map was directed to be corrected. The respondents challenged the order of Tahsildar by preferring an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer which was allowed vide order dated 11.06.2021 and the order of Tahsildar was set aside. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner Division Bhopal who in turn has dismissed the same on the ground of delay. Therefore, present petition has Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 8/30/2024 6:04:25 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:14384 2 MP-1824-2023 been filed.
It is argued that before the Sub-Divisional Officer, the notice was never served upon the petitioner which is reflected from the order-sheets brought on record. The order sheet dated 16.03.2021 reflects "र ज टड Ad क तामील िनवाह उपरांत ा नह ं ती ा हे तु". The respondent No.6 has initially issued notice to the petitioner. Registered notice was issued but the same has not been served nor the authorities were in receipt of the record, despite the same vide order dated 16.03.2021, the delay has been condoned. The order sheet further reflects that the acknowledgment of service has not been received. Thereafter, after condoning the delay and allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the arguments were heard. The next date was fixed to be 26.03.2021 wherein the authorities have observed that the record has not been received till date. On 06.04.2021, the record has not been received. On 12.04.2021, the matter was adjourned owing to COVID- 19 pandemic. On 04.06.2021, the records were not received. Further order sheets does not reflect any service of notice on the petitioner but inspite of the fact the authorities have finally decided the case without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the aforesaid fact. It is only argued that a detailed order has been passed by the authorities but he could not dispute the order sheets of the SDO which clearly reflect that the service of notice on the petitioner was not made effected, rather without even hearing the petitioner, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been allowed and the matter has Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 8/30/2024 6:04:25 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:14384 3 MP-1824-2023 finally been decided ex parte against the petitioner.
Under these circumstances, as the notice was not made effected upon the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was granted to him, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate the matter back to the concerning authorities i.e. SDO for reconsideration of the case on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and affected parties. Therefore, the impugned order and the order of Sub-Divisional Officer are unsustainable and are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub Divisional Officer for reconsideration from the stage of hearing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The petition stands disposed of finally in above terms. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE VV Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 8/30/2024 6:04:25 PM