HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT^ILASPUR SinaleBench Hon'bteShri H.L. Dattu. CJ. Writ PetiUon N0.882 of2001 Petltioner ResBondente '. € Uderam, son of Malik Ram Adharia, aged about 68 years, Oecupatlon Cultivgtor, Resident of gerera, Kapukuda, Talisil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) versus 1. The ColleGtor, Mahasamund, Distriot Mahasamund(Chhattisgarti) 2. Sub-Divisional OfRcer, Saraipali, Dlstrict Mahasarriund(Chhattisgarti) 3. Chandra Shekhar, aged about 60 yeare, son ofBudhy 4. Tunu, aged about 53 years, Budhu Saura, ! 5, Lagnu, son of Budhu Saura.aged about 50 yeare, 8. Ph^nu, aged about 45 years, son of BudhuSaura, 7. Jagnu, aged about 42 years,. son of BudhuSaura, 8. Sukhai, aged about 40 years, daughter of BudhuSaura, wfe of Shokhilal Respondent no.3 to 8 all resident of Kapukuda, P.H, No.16, TahsilSaraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Present : ShriPankajShrivastava.coynselforthepetitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Adv. for the State/respondents No.:1 &2. Smt. Renu Kochar, counset for respondents No. 3 to 8. ORALORDER (Passed 6h 25BI Apnl, 2007) Petitioner is the purehaser of land,bearing Khasra N0.6QCOQ2 (pieoe) and Khasra N0. 62 (piece), measuring area 2,13 acres, situate.in village Khamarpali after obtainiing^^appropiiatepermission frpm the Competent Authority, from the ^the^of reSpondents No. 3 to 8 registered sale deed dated 06-01-1968. ; lunclera ; itiUialujiiii tauuLia -2_ ^ 'WA l!lii;[ il" !i'l (2) The S.D.O. (Revenue) by exercising suo mctu power under Section 170-B of theChhattisgarh Land Revenue Code has passed an order dated 16-08-1989 reverting back the land from the purchaser and handing over the possession of the same to the respondents No. 3 to 8. Aggrieved by the said order of the S.D.O., the petitioner carried the matter before the First Appellate Authority in theyear 2000 and the Firet Appellate Authority rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner by order dated 05-03-2001 onlyon the ground'of delay and laches: Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before me in this writ petition. (3) in the First Appeal filed by the petitjoner before the Appellate Authority, it was his specific case that he came to know about theorders passed by the S.D.O. sometime in the year2000 when the respondents No.StoStriedtodisturbhispeaeefulpossessionandenjoyment overthe land purchased by him in the year. 1868. Along with the appead he had also filed an application under Section 5 ofthe Limitation Act to condone the delay, If any. The Finst Appellate Authority without noticing any one of the grounds uiged by the appellant in his appiication for condonation of delay, has mechanicaliy passed the orderdated 05-03-2001 rejectingthe appealfiled bythepetitioner. (4) I have also carefully gone through the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. A perusal of the said order would cleariy demonstrate that it is a non-speaking order. The order shouldspeak itself. The Appellate Authority is expecfed t0 asslgn appropriateand oogent reason whiledeGicIing an appeal. Same is lacking in the present case. Jherefore, t cannot su^ain:the o[tler passed by the First Appellate Authority and the same requires to be set-aside. Accordihgly, Vne following:- 1 3 ms ORDER 1. The petition isallowed. 2. The impugned order passed by the Firet Appeltate Authority dated 05-03-2001 is set-aside. 3. The matter is remanded back to the First Appellate Authority with a direction to decide the appeal gfthe petitioneron its own merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 4. Othercontentions oftheparties areteft open. 5. Order aocorciingly. SdA \ auef Justice iJUf