HK3H COURTOF CHHATTISOARH: BIU^PUR WRIT PETITION (Ct N04267 OF 2007 PETITIONERS/ Applicants RESPONDENTS/ Non-Applicante 1. AjayKumar,ag«135y%9rs,S/ftChetan Soni. 2. Sanjay Kumar, aged 32 y^us, S/o Chetan Soni. Both the petittoners are R/o village Singhouri, Teshit Bemslara, District Durg (CG). Versus 1, Board of Revenue, Chhatti^arh. B»la^»ur, Cireuit Court at Raipur. 2. The Upper Collectew. at Beinietara, Dishwt Durg (CG). 3. The Sub Uvistonal Offteer (Ravenue), at Bemetara, District Durg (GG). 4. Champa Bai, aged 53 yeais. W/o Krishna Kumar Soni 5. Uday Singh, aged 52 years, S/o Rildii Ram Sonl 6. KsasSk Dhimar.S/o Sukaly Ram Dhinar All the respondents hto.4 to 5 are Wo village Sin^iouri, Teshil Bemetara. DWrict Durg (CG). (Writ petition under Arttete 227 ofttieConstitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shii Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri R.K. Kesharwani, counsel fw the petitioners. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panet Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on this 5m day of January, 2009) Leamed counsel appearing for th^ pefittoners submits that against the order dated 20-12-2002 p»sedby the Tahsild^, the respondents No. 4, 5 & 6 have preferred an appeal before the Sub Dh/iskmal Ctffcer, Bemetara, after a delay of more flian 45 days i.e, 69 6ays. The Sub Dh/isional Oflfeer came to Uie condusion that the irrterested persons i.e. the respondents No.4, 5 & 6 were not made parties in ttie Rroceedings before the Tahsildar, thus fte limitafion would ^art from the dalB of knowtedge of the order. Accordingly, the delay in filing ttie appeal wie condoned. The appeal is pending consklerafion. Learned counsel ftirthersubmte ttiat the ctelay was condoned vwthout thsre bejng any applicafion for condonation of delay. -?^ 2) Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Bemetara. The Additronal Collector by order dated 21-10-2004 dismissed the app^l holding that the ordw passed by <he Sub Dh/ia'onal Officer was just and proper. There-against ttie petitionere preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue also by order dated 10-7-2(X)7 (Annexwe-P/1) dismissed the revision without finding any error in the orders passed bythe Sub Divisional OfRcer as well as by the Addittonat Collector. 3) Shri Kesharwani, leamed counsel for the petittoner, submits ttiat the matter is still pending consideration before tti®Sub Oivfeional Officer; howwer, condonation of delay by the Sub Uvisional Officer in entertaining the appeal was contraiy to legal provisions, as no application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was fited. 4) Be that as it may, since the responctents No.4 to 6 were not the parUes to the original proceedings, the delay was condoned on the ground that the limitation woutd start from fte date of the knowledge of the order. Thus, the orders passed by the Courts below are unexcepUonabte, just & proper and does not warrant any interference. 5) This Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdicUon under ArtK;te227 cS the Constitufion of India should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where peiversily, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictronal error is writ large on ttie face of the record, which is not in ttie present case. 6) In view of ttie foregoing, the peBBon deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Since the matter is pending consjderation on merit before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bemetara, the pefitionets may appear and participate in the proceedings for adjudicafion of th® case in accordance with law. 7) Consequentty, I.A.hto.1 stands disposed <rf. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge