HEGH COUR‘? OF JU§£¢§XURE CHH&T?!$GARH : EEL§SP£§a W$it Pet§€iam wa'mg bf §f§ 5 s w Fifi ; agi‘xiir? Jiyaidas SE5 Pam‘umai $inghi, {esident of Sambaipw, Tehsil Bhanupratappur, Disi‘t. Bas'éar a4: presnt Rio Clo 2W5 JJ. Traders, Gudiyari, Raipu? ,{MP) = ESPQNDENTS 1. Eoard cf Revgnue, Mmimahai, Gwaioa’ Vs‘ Thrs‘wri: petition is direcied againsr rhe order of rhe Board of Revemie. he first respondeni herein. datec‘ ?.3.1995 dismissing the the Commissioner J . appear <:f "the petiticner preferred against the order o“ r2} ’fhe background facte, reading to firing of ihis wréi petiiion be noted in the firsr insiance and they, in briei’, are as foi3ows: Gr} an application made by respondents 2 and 3 €o ihe Sub Divisionei O‘r‘i‘ioer. Karrker, the 4th reeporrden't herein. rhe 4t“ responderii passed me oroier under Seciior‘: WO-B of ihe Chhatiisgarh Land. Revenue Coee, 195$} (for short ‘ihe {MP}. 2. Gharandas Sic Lam Gond R/o Viiiage —— Tudge Tahsii Bhanupraiappur, Districi: Bastar (MP). . Panchuram S/o Latii Gandy Rio Tuc‘ge through Legai Represen’tatWe Ku. Mamia D/o iate Panchuram Thrcug‘n —- Guardian, Charandas R/o Tudge, Tehsii Bhampratappur, Bi$€t Ba$tax2 4. The Sub-Divisionai Of?icer, Kanken District, Bastar (MP). Pmsen? : Mr. BP Shama, leamed counsel fer the peiiiioner. _ learned counse% far respoawdenk 2 aw 3. W f-"’arag Kotecha, Mr. Sanjay S Agawvai, ieémed Govt Adv. for the $rare of Cfé {Di-RAL 6%QER {Passed or} 22“a June 290$} Code’) hoiding that the subject land pumhased by the peEitioner herein i5 Mega! and directing restoration 0f the subject iand Eh faveur cf {espondents’ 2 and 3. Thai‘ order was assaned by the ‘petitiener before the Collecior, Bastar District by way of an appeai. The Coiiectar, Bastar District aiiowed the appeai and set aside the order of the 4th respondent. Feeiing~ aggrieved by ihe said order of the Coiiector, respondents 2 end 3 preferred further appeai to the Commissioner. When the said appeal wee pending, Panchuram, the third respondent herein, died in the month of August. 1989. The iegai representatives of deceased Penchuram made an appiication before ihe Commissioner to oome on record and ’rhet appiication was eiiowed, but, “Ehe names of ’rhe iegai represeniaiives are no shown in the cause-iist. This defect coniinued. The Commissioner, uitirnaieiy, aiiowed the appeei of responéents 2 and 3 and set aside the order of ihe Coiieoior, Easter districi and restored the order oi the 4” ‘F respenoient. Since the names of the LRsof the respondent no. 3 are not mutated in the cause-iist, that mistake continued and even in the certified copy of the order of the Commissioner the said mistake crept in. ‘viirith such defective certihed copy of the order oi the Commissioner. the petitioner herein preferred revision to the Board oi Revenue. the ‘ist respondent herein. When the seici defect was noticed after considerehie deiay, the petitioner moved an eppiication dated 4.1.1995 to show the names of the LRs. of deceased Panchuram in piece oi the name of Punohurem. Since there was deiay in moving that appiicaiion, the Board of Revenue not oniy dismissed the appiioation moved by the petitioner but aiso dismissed the eppeei itseif by the impugned order. {3) i heard iearned counsel for the parties. The reason given by the Board of Revenue to dismtss the appiicetion as weii as the main appeai mi Lmw \‘/ itseif is totaEiy untenabie and unjustified. The mistake was wept ‘m the cemfied copy cf the order 0f the Commissioner not due to any lapse on the pari- of ihe petitiener, but, due to e serious iapse on the part of fespcndents 2 and 3 and/or their counsel. When the Commissioner aiicwed the applicatim to bring LRs of deceaseci Punchuram, ihe iegai representatives and Ethei! counsei oughi i0 have mutated $319 cause tiiie wi'zhir: tee permissibie time. Thea? iapse came? be put against Ehe petitiener ta dismiss his legai action. in ‘ihat View of ihe matter, i aliow the writ pe‘tiiion and set aside the impugned order sf the Board of Revenue and allow the appiicaiien of the petitioner dated 4.1 .3995, as prayed fer, ahd iviiss Mamta is ordeted to be shown as legai represeratative of the deceased Punchutam as respondent no.3 in the array of the parties in the revision fiied before the Boatd of Revenue. The proceedings are remanded to the Board of Revenue with a direction to dispose of the tevision on rnerit in accordance with iaw, exoeditiousiy, at any rate, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. my: w,“ ”4