Soneram Tyagi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to approach the competent Court challenging the order passed by Tehsildar, Kailaras dated 27.07.2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present petitioner could not prefer an appeal against the order passed by Tehsildar as he got indulged in other remedy of complaining of irregularity and illegality committed by Tehsildar and, therefore, the time of filing the appeal has already expired. It was further prayed that the delay which has occurred in litigating by exhausting the other remedies may be condoned and the learned appellate Court be directed to decide the appeal on its own merits without going into other aspect of limitation.

Per contra, Shri Quraishi, learned Govt. Advocate submits that all these aspects with regard to delay can be submitted before the appellate Court by preferring an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and the appellate authority would take its decision on the said application after considering the contentions therein in the application and such liberty should not be granted to the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The present petition had been filed against the inaction on the part of the respondent No.2 i.e. Collector in not considering the representation filed by the petitioner with regard to the illegality which has been committed by Tehsildar while deciding the case of mutation vide order dated 27.07.2018. Prior to that against the illegality committed by Tehsildar, a complaint was made even to Lokayukt and since Lokayukt had not take any action, the petitioner has approached this Court vide M.Cr.C. No.12093/2020 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2022 with a liberty to the petitioner to approach Collector, District Morena for the alleged irregularity and illegality committed by Tehsildar, Kailaras, District Morena in the matter of proceedings for mutation and in that context the petitioner has approached the Collector.

This Court finds that the recourse which was available to the petitioner was that of an appeal against the order of mutation passed by Tehsildar but instead of that, the petitioner had resorted to a wrong remedy of complaint to the appellate authorities and in that he has waisted more than five years.

Since the order of mutation dated 27.07.2018 passed by Tehsildar is an appealable order, the petitioner is directed to prefer an appeal within the period of 15 days from today challenging the said order and point out the illegality and irregularity committed by Tehsildar while passing the said order.

As the appeal would be barred by limitation, the petitioner is directed to move appropriate application narrating all the facts which have been placed before this Court and, thereafter learned appellate Court is directed to consider the said application taking note of the fact of the delay in preferring the appeal and thereafter decide the said application on its own merits and if it is found that the delay is condonable then decide the appeal on merits.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.