^^ ^•s^^ •^- ^^^ ^6'", ^•'''"A.---' v>-~ IN THE HI6H COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Art.227) N0. OF 2009 PETITIONER MoN. hfCllcar^' Yoshwant Kumar, son of Shri ^e. 44 y^ Haricharan Agarwal/^resident of Kurud, Patwari Halka No.Z9, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari. Vs RESPON&ENT ,ftpplic.a^f- Premchand. son of Shri Kundanlal Agarwal, resident of Kurud, Patwari Halka No.Z9, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari WRIT PETITION UNbER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INblA HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGMW ArBlU^PUR Slnate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Judice Prashant Kumar Mistira PETITIONER Non AppBcant RESPONDENT A 'iGant Writ Petttion <227»No.3287 / 2009 Yashwant KUHKBT Versus PrenichsBwi Shri B.P. Shanna, counsd fprthe petiUoner. Shri Vishmi (to^tta, counsel fef respondait. i WRTT PEmTON UNDERARTrci£2Z7OF THECONS-m'UnONOF »HMA :; ::' •' '::;1^-"•:::•,::'?K ORALORDER (18^3^010) The petftioner has osrftedln quesBon theorder<idted!fl9-05^009 passed by the Board <rf Revenue (Anniauire P/1), preferred by the respondent. The said reviston peUGon wasprefaTed^ to chaHenge the order psesed by Sub Dhrisional Officer, Ktffud.'pBtrict -^ - Dhamtari on ie-0/2-2009 thereby sdlowing tiie prtiBoner's a^lieation ".«t uncter Sectkm 5 of the Lhnitzrtion Act to condone the delay of abouf 12 years in prefemng Ure appeal againsl the order of mife^CTi jg^^dtog the ASLR, Kurud on 19-(E-19% wte CTtey No^9 in <he nwtErtion register. (2) Fact ofthe case,in ^wrt, are ttiat the pet|tioneTdam»to have purchased the land bearing Ktasra No.241/46 under the sate-deed (Annexure P12} dated (&01-1986. Accwdiig to him.thetASLR purportedly acting on the aibmB^pn m«|eby the r»(»)ndent<hsrt tie :--1 1: " has recehred the land in partition ordered for mutaMon for His nameson 1.00 acre of land from «sraNo. 241/46. 11 is the cs®e*ofthe« petitioner that the sald onter crf mutaftion was passed bythe^SfcRinsft' Hw '-'^S^ff'-^s^^'^ ^f^ \ % 'SSB-"' "g | Vy^¥ -.2-- />-} c: cireuitous (nanner tetund the back of the p^itionet, wltho^gh^^ <ypwhinfty of hearing and fliait he was not aware <rf the correction / mo<fificaUon in the revenue rrcwd. Accorefing^l "I came to know aboirt the subject correctkm in the revenue reGord oi» K „ 03-04-2(K)7 whereupon he hnmediatedy appfed forotAainingcjBtified»^a "23 „ ! ' " copy on 04-04-2007 and ana^eal underSecUon^ ^^^^^^ ChhatBsgarti Land Revenue Code, AQSS vfss preferred <m 12-04^007 „ befwe the Sub Divisional Offteer (Revenue), Kurud. (3) The peTOoneralsqmp^anapplicaAiont^erSec^5^the.» Limttation Act fbr cwdonation of dday in prefemng the appeal. Itwas a, stated by him that since he was nrt mrticed bythe ASLR, he wasinot s „„ '-"'»~,,"i~' ,:'" 1:?A 'v aware of the said oreler o< mutatton dsrted 19-02-1995 whtefricamne-to*. his knowtedge oiriy on 03-042007, therefore the delay<le8etv <t0tl tf.!fe^ cond<med. (4) The resporrient herehi, in tre reply beftwe the S.D.OAto the a^ p^lione^s appUcalton under SecBon 5 oftheLhniterttonActstateclAhatis^ Ure petftioner was awareof the saad correcUwi in the revenue re<ard %„ because there has been a parHBon in Uie famBy and ths* AeB ^ afyltoation is malaficte. He atep subnuttedthat the reqiondentte^ffl possesston of the subjecttand and.ft»rtMs reason dsoftisflhperative ns^ that fte petfttoner was m theknowofthecorrectedei^. »-r'» (5)" The S.D.O., by his onter derted 16-(Q-2609 (Annexwe? P@ y^ "^ altowed the applfcation under Sectton 5 of the Unntafion A<ds- MK'wa»»»£; observed by the S.D.O. that on a penisal of ^ (mler darted^^ ^^ St 1&<2-1995 tt woukt appear thartthe p^aioner was ntA present at the , /^- ^!@»3'^ 'v" .< 2>- ¥f^ ~'1:, fVl^b/ time of makmg the ertlry ae it is agned only by the respondert fflidfKrt y;^ by the petitkwier. It appears that toe S.D.O., by this fa<d of wantof^^ knowlec^e of the peBtioner, conduded ttet Uie pet <mer i has i succros(uty explamed the dday OT prefwriiig(heappeal. ; (6) The respondert has submitted documents before UusCourt to ® ctenronstrate thaft a CivB Suft is pendmg between Uie (artie&'wher^n fe '^ dispute is about easmerrtary right of the BhagwaM Rtee MU ofiwhteh "te, the re^xmdent is one of^partneTAccoi^^toNmthesaKl^^^^^ Suitas wett as the certtficate issued by the Palwi»i (Aniwxxire W6 ~:! coltectivel^, (Annexwe R/7 coUectivety) ftwoiddbeapparerrtth^-thfrn.^ petitioner has paBd land rewnue only fbr an anea admes^tfRg-Q.25 %ji, acre and not fbr 1.25 acre, whteh was the area covered tmdeBthe aalei- ste deed with respect to Khasra No. 241/46 and assuch it^wuktbe"^ inferred thal the prtKtoner wias awaffe oftti®parraion and the abseneeo «^, of his claim over the subjectland. (7) I teve heard leamed cptBisel for the panties s* tei^th.' Fnmn fce> «fc docimrentsappendedwtthJ^v^pi^jUonamlthe^ that the p^itioner was not anware of the subje<A correi^on m fce-^ revenue reconts affected by theASLRon 19-02-1%5.tThet respOTKtert has ffled WBK>US dqcumerts to demon^rate+that.the^^ peAttioner was aware of the saki correctkm. Ttw docunierts areoiriyto ^^ 'T<a' the^ffect ttiat the peUtioner may be awsnre of the myfa(tiCT»iand«K»,,, inference can be drawn thal he WEK aware of the order dated"fc, 1 19-<©-1995. Thoygh the certificate of Patwari regareBng payinerrta'ofeat ^»tBF8) tand revenue is to the efftect ttrat the petiMmer wre payir®atand "'i revenue only (br Q35 erore and not for the entire area 1.%»aere»6f i%;!s.-. c^"^ ~/'f / <-/-' / -Ll 1 ^ Khasra No. 241AW yettt remainsandissui uncwitroverted factAhatthe p^ftiona- wae not f»esertat the time o< correctton. Muepyer,^ respondent has not subntittedanydocuments efther befoFe^ttie,@®.©i! or before this Court wh'ich we®the basis of hte subirri^ion that UwHigh the sate-deed stood intiie name cSVne peUkMiery^ infacltherewasa subsequent partWon wherein 1.00 asiFe out of 1.25acre from Khasra No. 241/46 has fallen in hteshare. In the absence of any sudv documCTts, thte Court js unaWe to accept the argumerrts^iaused^thei teamed counsel Ibr the rropondtent that ttie petitfororwa®aw®e^*e; orelerdatwl 19-02-1995. (8) It is s^lled law Uiat |»rtiesto be R^alUon shoyld be^tgrantedfeii»a • :-:^;~1.:^::.':^":.-.-'.'^.':.^ .;:;:''w::':':^:'^'^ite^:^::.:::A.Ai^ fuBest OKiorfamity to cmite^ the case<m merits and i to the Cmirt shouU not be dismissed on ttie grounefcof '!i-;M~3:,.;S!:':.l!a; W •w^ Hmitsrtion when tt is found Uat the delay he®mrt b^n oeca®hwre<ti because of the negBgence <ff ^kaisness of the paty birt he wasi prevented by any sufficiertcase toapproireh the Courtw hiH the-finiea provicted under Uie law. (9) Leamed coynsel fbr tt resppndent has relied on the*lawdakl» down by Htm'bte Supreme Cqurt in Aff? 2007 SC 2624 0.00pftra(hani "lij PM^I Vs. Stete ofK«Rda&Anr. The case befbre Hw^le-St^ireme Court was for S^IH^ aeKte fbr an award under the ArtAraGan AGt.»^ii. pasa. 5 of tte report Hon'bte Siqa^me Cant has recwded the;finc ng^ that the detey has not been satisfactorty exptenned. * »»« « In the presert case this Court has foimdUtat the petffiwier has been aUe to ex|<ain the delay satisfactorily, thia the above judgment "3 ofthe Hon'Me Supreme CourttecfeUi^ishabtepnfacts."* * »s» "•^^ B«t 'iftA 'ii sy -5 /'IIX (10) In view of what ha®been heU above the instEBiit petitiai •^t'w' •"S| succeeds and is allowed. The order passed bythe BoaKl of Revenue (Annexure P/1) is s^-askte. Both the parties ^iall appear before the S.D.O. to aigue the appeal on irorits. (11) Noonlerastocosts. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge