HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE CHHATriSQARH ; BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, C.J. WRnrPETmON NO. 2318 OF 1998. PETITIONERS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Ram Avtar, S/o. MiuisW Ram ahamia, Occupaton CulUvation, R/o. VJUs^e Gharghoda District Raigarh. Kirodimal Sharma, S/o. MUn^iiram Sharma. aged about 42 yeats, occupation culfivation, R/o. Wltage Gharghoda District Raigarh. Hetram Sharma S/o. Mynshi Ram Sharma, OGCUpatton Cultivation, R/e. Village Gharghoda District Raigarh. Dwarka Prasad Sharma, 8/0. Munshi Ram Sharma, Occupation Cuttivation, R/o. Viltege Gharghoda Distrkd Rafgarh, Ayodhya Prasad Sharma SA». Munshi Ram Sharma, Occupation Cultivation, R/o. VAIIage Gharghoda District Raigarh (MP). Vs. RESPONDENTS 1. Board crf Revenue, Gwaltor. 2. Commissioner (l^venue), Diviston, Bjtaspur. 3. Mst. Rusobai wklow of Ghosh 4. Parwiti D/o Mahanand. 5. Ravl S/o Mahanand. 6. Dandaram S/o Mahanand. 7. Sukanti D/o Ghosh. 8. Kanti D/o Ghosh. 9. Gokul S/o Ghosh. 10. MOngra S/o Ghosh. 11. Mahanand S/o Karan. 81. No. 3to 11 atl lesldent ®f©harghoda tahsil Gharghoda distrlct Raigarh (MP). Present: Shri V.R. Tiwari, teamed counsel forthe petitioners. Shri Vinay Harit, tearned Dy. A.G. for respondent N0.2. -^ ORALORE^ER (Passed on 8m November. 2006^ Failure to exercise the dfecretion v®st«lin the ComRiissiener aB<l Board of Revenue fairly in the fects and drcumstance ofthe case had ted to stalllng of the adjudteatory proceedings fora long period of 13 yeais and more. (2) The Appeal preferrwl by the petttioners heretn agalnst »ie order of ttie Collwtor, Raigarh under Se«^ion 170-B of the Chhadi^afh Land Revenue Code, 1959, (for short 'the Code') was listed for hearif^|OR 28.09.1993. The Counsel who was appearing on behatf of flie petUoners having noted the date of heartng s®29.0@.1^3 swongty. dtd n<rt ap|N«r before ttie Commissioner on 28.09.1993 whteh wis ttie cwrect date of hearing. ConsequenUy, the Commissioner dismi^wil the appeal for non- prosecution on 28.09.1993. The counsel for the appeUant-peUtionere on 29.09,1993 havlng come to know that tie Gommtssloner had dismtssed the appeal on 28.09.1993, moved an applicatlon before the (^iiiBiissioner to set aside the Order made by hlm on 28.09.1993 and restw®tti®app^il to the Tite of ttie Commissioner. The Commissloner dtsmtesed ttw said application of the petltioners-appellants. Feelir^ aggriwed by thatorder of the Commissioner, ttie petitlonere preferredl fufttier a^peal under Section 35(4) of the Code to th®Board of Revenye, antf th®Board of Revenue also dlsmissed the appeal by Hs order cteted (Q.05.19^. Hence, tfiis writ petition. (3) H is stated that in the afiidavit flted tn suppert ef ttie applicatton, teamed counset for the pefifioner has stated ttiat he had wrongly noted ttie date of hearing as 29.09.1^3 instead <rf rreifi^g chown the correct date as 28.09.1993. It is not as if there was any eoiisiderabte <^---^ delay in moving the application for r^toration of ttie apy»al. The application was moved the very next day by the toarmd ceuresel. Therefore, the Commissioner as weU as the Board of Revenu®In falmess, ought to have allowed the applicatton and restored ttie appeal to ttie fBe of ttie Commissioner and decided the appeal on mertt. In ttiat view of the matter, 1 allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order and remand the proceedings to the Board of Revenue, ChhatUsgarii Stata, Bilaspur with a direction to dtspose of the procealtngs on mertte after giving reasonable opportuniUes to the concemed as expediUousfy as possibte, in any event, within a period of slx months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. —— Sd/- Chief Justice ^m ^ !