RAJENDRA PRASAD vs HITENDRA KUMAR JAIN

This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) on 7.10.2015 (Annexure P/10) which was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision which was decided on 20.09.2016 (Annexure P/12).

The petitioner submits that based on a registered Will dated 7.3.1984, the land in question was mutated by order dated 17.8.1984. The land was mutated in the joint name of petitioner and respondent. After a period of almost 29 years, the respondent challenged the said mutation entry of dated 17.8.1984 by filing an appeal before the S.D.O (Harda). An application for condonation of delay was also filed by the respondent along with the said appeal. Despite the fact that no sufficient cause could be shown for explaining the delay of 29 years, the SDO mechanically passed the order dated 7.10.15 (Annexure P/10) and condoned the delay. This order was challenged by filing the revision which was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue.

Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel submits that earlier during OctoberNovember,2013, the respondent applied for partition. The Tehsildar (Harda), allowed the same ex-parte by order dated 15.11.2013 (Annexure P/3). The said ex-parte order dated 15.11.2013 was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before SDO (Harda). The said authority, on 25.7.2014 set aside the said order (Annexure P/4) and restored the earlier position. Since respondent was non-applicant in the said appeal proceedings, she must be aware about all the revenue entries made prior to it. In other words, it is submitted that since respondent herself filed the application for partition in 2013, she must have gone through earlier revenue entries. Thus, it cannot be believed that she was not aware about the earlier entry dated 7.3.1984.

Learned Senior counsel submits that the SDO and the Board of Revenue have not examined this aspect carefully and condoned the delay mechanically. It runs contrary to the order passed in the case of Radhacharan Vs. State of M.P.-2012(4) MPLJ-549, Basawaraj and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer- (2013) 14 SCC-81 and Joint Collector Rana Reddy District and another Vs. D.Narsing Rao and others-(2015) 3 SCC-695.

Shri Vivekanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order by learned SDO and Board of Revenue. There is no material on record to show that respondent was aware about the revenue entry dated 17.8.1984. On the basis of assumption, it cannot be said that the respondent was aware about the said entry because she filed an application for partition in October-November-2013. Shri Awasthy supported the impugned order.

No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

The application for condonation of delay shows that the respondent has categorically pleaded that she, for the first time, came to know about the revenue entry dated 17.8.1984 on 01.08.2014. Thus, from the date of knowledge, she preferred the appeal within time. As an abundant caution, she filed an application for condonation of delay. The learned SDO allowed the said application on 7.10.2015 by holding that the record shows that at the time of amendment in the revenue entry on 17.8.1984, respondent''s signatures were not obtained. He gave a further finding that there is no entry in the document dated 17.8.1984 that any advertisement was issued, or any notice in this regard was issued to the respondent. On the said basis, the learned SDO accepted the application for condonation of delay. Interestingly, the Board of Revenue also gave the finding that in revenue entry Register No.46 dated 17.8.1984, there is no entry about issuance of the notice or advertisement.. The core issue is whether the said orders passed by the SDO and the Board of Revenue are liable to be interfered with in a proceeding filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

In Radhacharan (supra), this Court interfered with the proceeding pending before the Board of Revenue at the behest of the State Government because in the said proceeding (filed after 23 years), no sufficient cause was shown. However, this court held that delay can be condoned if specific reasons with accuracy and precision are shown for condonation of delay. In Radhacharan(supra), the State Government furnished a bald reason/statement that the matter has a public interest element and, therefore, it can be entertained after more than two decades. This court, in absence of ''sufficient cause''?, did not accept the same.

In Basawaraj (supra), the Apex Court held that delay cannot be condoned on equitable grounds. However, when ''sufficient cause''? is available, the delay can be condoned.

In D.Narsing Rao (supra) also no different principle is laid down.

In the present case, there is no clinching evidence on record to show that respondent was aware about the revenue entry in question and yet she did not challenge it for more than two decades. On the contrary, the findings of the learned SDO and Board of Revenue suggests that in the relevant revenue entry dated 17.8.1984, there is no acknowledgment/ signatures of the respondent. In addition, there exists no entry about factum of issuance of advertisement and notice to the respondent. Thus, I am unable to hold that respondent was aware about the said revenue entry and yet did not challenge it. I am also satisfied that respondent has shown ''sufficient cause''? for not filing the appeal in time. She has rightly pleaded that appeal is filed after gathering knowledge about the relevant revenue entry.

The authorities below have taken a plausible view which does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, manifest procedural impropriety or palpable perversity. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. In exercise of powers under Article 227, this court is not required to correct any error of law or fact; or just because another view then the one taken by the court below is a plausible view. {See :Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329}.

Since the respondent has shown ''sufficient cause''? for condonation of delay, the judgment cited by the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner. There is no ingredient in the impugned order on which interference can be made. Hence, interference is declined. Petition is dismissed.