XN THE HI<3I COEJBT OS- JUDICATUKE AT BILASPUR (G.G.) WRXS PEII'rION N0. '3> &1 OF 2002 SETWEEN 1. 2. 3. BcishSiikBioi. aged about 60 years S/o Late Ehanurjay Aoi, oeeiflpatien cultivatlen. Khageshwar B^ aged crbout; 68 years. S/o Lafee Shri Sar®Das«OGewpatlon eultiva-tieBa. Toldiram Agrawal aged abou-fc 66 years S/o late Banarasi Bas Agrawal, occupatic®cullaLvatiia • All the petitioners are resident oS Village Barlhapali. tahsil Saraipali,Dlstriet Mah^asaund, ..^•:^y ^-y BSTITXONERS ,..--^^^ ^A- K S S' 1. 2. 3. 4. Paoraa singh a$ea abeut 5S yeairs,S/o Lafce Sbri Jogo Slagh.occupald.an culUvation S/o Village Sartbapalit'rabsil SarsdBpali District Mabasamund. State of Chha'fctisgarh, through the Seeretary Bepartment of Bevenae* B.K.s.Building, Raipur. Additional Ganniissiaaac, Raipur Bivision, Raipur. oollector Mahasamunta, Eistriet Mabasamund. RESPCNBSN'rS WRIS EEIITXCN UNDEB ARTICLES 226/227 O? WB_ eais'Eiiu'Eicasi os- INDIA XI-HC-22 SIlt^I'^1 WM 3V^V ^DH}^ yfefl 7^ -lll'lllcl'il, onl'y'is, [«i<ni'Mli< W(Rwaiiich W'.^-^,361/^ ^ ••^ 200 3T1^?T 5«l(t^R^lT^T 15/3/2002 Shri L.C, Das for the petiti{niers. Shri Saajay K.Agrawa], Bhaduri, QovtAdvocate, for thc Hcaid, D^ >^.A.G., & Shri Gautam tcspondcnts no.2 to 4. The petitioners have filed order whereby fhe CoUector, appUcation of fhfi respondent whlch was disnussed in dcfaul|t, application and the afiBdavits said that there fc no reason to dife' Against fhe said order, the appcal before tfae Conunissionel' by thc AddLCoinmissiDner, Rai^ur thc Addl.Conunissu>ner has alsd siaiicr iavolved is regardmg sale of lan^ bis order, the Addl.Coiimussicji 5/10/98 counsel for fhe noted fhe acxt date as 7/12/| responpent ^I^I<?l<lhT 'qTR^f^ fe^ <fflt^i< ^? siPdH an^i |this petition against fhe Myiasainund restored the no.l,who was Adivasi, aftier considcring fhe ffled and the Court has dibcard fhc affidavits. t>etitioners preferred an r.which has been heaid Division, Ralpur and noted that the question ofAdivasi. In para 3 of has noted that on was present and hc 1998 but hc couM not s^/ [T^^fisA XI-HC-22 sn^iqii 'R'IHTSTI^T 5iflich yf^Ti '3^ •^)WI<Y1<<, ®fl1«'is,1^?TRiy Vv/,f-'N^-3(>l/^-^'z- Hi*<CTi'%Tira;"" """"wi^ 20o sn^i wnw: ^ifsa -2 mbdc appcar on fhat date and restoration on 29f9/2000. It is are not penal and the matter sw^ the rcspondcnt sUaU have gijvca aa opportunily to address on incrits. an appMcation for ^ioted tbat the pravfcions bc heard on merits and In the aforesaid coanec^ion, Shri Agrawal also \vact a judgment of Apex kfh Sao and ofhers vs. broiight to fhe noticc of this C< Court in the case of Ram. N1 Gobardhaa Sao and ofhers , JT The Apex Court ia fhe afi[ undcr: The courts should not tendency offindit^ fault ^iih shown aad reject the petit^on order. There is no straitjacjket accepting or lejccting expl^nati for fhe delay caused ia taljing Sufficient cause should refceive interpretation so as to adv|ance justice. Explanation ofier^d rejected, taking a hyper te(: pedaatic view ofthe matte|r Having considcrcd fhc ^ aad inaterial available on recorfl 13ti|*fl<n<ilri 'WT^f ^ 'fs^t' <F;q^,K ^?3]PgH3ii^?r |2002 (2) SC 349. bresaM case has held as pri|)ceed with the fhe cause ia sUpshod formTila for matiou, funushed ing steps. aBberal substaatial should not be ;hnicalor cts aad cucumstances and in vicw of thc fact [1Eft^'^f^ r <-' iiiiB.i BHB XI-HC-22 3llt?iqiT f^iwant;! WfiV^ ^^ 'S^I •^Wtv\'t\, ^Wt<c, hwwy. HWWI ^tffSfi ^•.-^•U^^36l/^>^ ^....-...:............................^ 290 fa'b<{8T" that both fhe courts bclow i^ Conunissioner found fhc res^oration justified and further fl^c Apex Court in fhe case of opmfon of thte Court, no \e out in exercise of power uaderArticle 226 ofthe Condtitution oflndia. in vicw of fhc judgincnt of Raia Nafh Sao (supr^, in casc for iaterferencc is mad The petition fails and is ^ITt^fepih ilf4fff "^ Fs^ •((^I'^K ir sipBH sii^i . the CoBcctor as wdl aa fhe ftle disntissed. liltl1 lliiflCT