mwy ^if f22 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAmi AT B1LASPUR WR1T PETITION No. 335 of 1998 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS 1. Ramadhar S/o Motiram. 2. Basant Kumar, S/o Ramadhar. 3. Ashok Kumar, S/o Rainadhar. 4. Vinod Kumar, S/o'Ramadhar. All Residents of Village Dhamxii, R.N.Maiidal Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (MP) VERSUS : 1. The Additional Collector, Bilaspur, Distt. Biiaspur (MP) 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilaspur (MP) 3. Dauram S/o Maiigal 4< Keela Bai, W/o Panchram. 5. Kli^laiirasii S/o Rusisay. 6. Keshav Pd. S/o Jugru Prasad. 7« Baiishirani S/o Maiigal 8. Guha S/o Huklaha 9. Shankarial S/o Ludu All Residents of Sambalpuri, R.N.Mandal BiUia, Distt. Bilaspur (MP) WRTr_PETr£I_QNIJNDE_RAKTICLE226/227 OF TEffi CONSTITUTIQN.^_&TOIA Single Bench: Hon'ble Justtce Shri Satish K.Agnihotrf, Present: Shri Rajiv Shrivastava, Advocate ai^earins on behalf'ofShri Sanjay K, Agi'awal, Advocate for the petitioiiers. Miss Deepali Pandey, Panel Lawyer fbrthe State/respondents 1 & 2. ORDER (Passed on 24th day of July, 2007) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 18.11.1997 passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur m Review case No. l'Ba'/121/97/98 dated 18.11.1997 (Annexiire P/2) whereby the respondent No. 3 to 9 were directed to file an appeal after condoning the delay before the Collector under the provisions ofSection 8 ofthe Chhattisgarh Samaj Ke Kanijor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron 8e Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhimvam, 4. 1976. Leamed counsel appearing for flie petitioner submits that the required limitation is 30 days fromthe date ofpassing ofsuch order. Leamed counsel fiirther submits that there is no provision for condonation of delay. The impu@ned order was passed in November, 1997. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on 14.12.1998. Thereafter. no step was taken for getting the matter expedited fbr hearing. The matter is taken up for heariiig today. About 10 years have passed. In the meantime, the appeal might have been disposed of on merit. At this stage, going into the provisions as to whcthcr the Additional Collector has powor to condone the delay m preferring appeal befbre the Collector would not subser^e any purpose. Thus it not necessary to examme the validity and legality ofthe iinpugned order dated 18.11.1997. Leamed counsel is also not m a position to infbrsn the Coiirt as to what is the stage ofthe case. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as having become infructiious. In the event, it is found that the appeal has not been disposed of and the cause of action still survives. the petitioner is at liberty to make an application for review ofthis order, ifhe so desires. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Armt