- (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15-4-2009 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer upholding the order dated 12-9-2008 passed by the Additional Collector-II Alwar, condoning the delay in the filing of an appeal by respondents No.3&4, under Section 75 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (herein after "1956 Act'), against the order dated 8-12-1989, whereby mutation of land till then standing in the khatedari of respondents No.3&4 in revenue record was done in favour of the petitioners.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that the appellate authority i.e. the Additional Collector-II Alwar, irregularly exercised its jurisdiction in condoning the delay of about 16 years in the filing of an appeal by the respondents No.3&4, against an order of mutation passed on 8-12-1989. It is submitted that the discretion exercised by the Additional Collector-II Alwar was without reference to the inability of the respondents No.3&4 herein appellants in appeal before the Appellate Authority to show any sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time and approaching the appellate authority belatedly. Mr. Mathur placed reliance on Lanka Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2011) 4 SCC 363] to contend that delay in taking remedies in law should not be lightly condoned. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record of writ petition, including the order dated 12-9-2008 passed by the Additional Collector-II Alwar which has been upheld vide order dated 15-4-2009 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer which is impugned in this petition. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 12-9-2008 has held that the order of mutation dated 8-12-1989 was passed without notice to respondents No.3&4 in breach of principle of natural justice. It was further held that as the issue in appeal was with regard to mutation in the record of rights in respect of khatedari of Scheduled Caste person being altered to the name of persons belonging to non-scheduled caste category in contravention of provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, entailing a void transaction, limitation was of no consequence. In these circumstances the Appellate Authority condoned the delay in filing of the appeal. The Board of Revenue in its order dated 15-4-2009 has considered the matter and held that the discretion exercised by the Additional Collector-II Alwar in condoning the delay in filing appeal along with the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be said to be irregular and improper in facts recorded by the Appellate Authority. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the matter of condonation of delay with reference to Section 5 of the Limitation Act is fundamentally a matter of discretion of the appellate authority/ revising authority where the appeal/ revision is filed beyond the prescribed limitation. The discretion if not irregularly exercised and otherwise if not perverse ought not to be interfered with by the superior courts. From the reasonings set out in the order dated 12-9-2008 by the appellate authority Additional Collector-II Alwar, upheld in the order dated 15-4-2009 by the Board of Revenue, I am of the view that the reasons for condonation of delay in filing the appeal cannot be said to be perverse or irregular. This court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute its discretion for that of discretion of the authorities below without finding an underlying irregularity or misdirection in law or perversity. None of the aforesaid grounds obtain in the present case.
(3.) I therefore find no force in the writ petition, and the same is therefore dismissed. Stay application and misc. application also stand dismissed.;