ISG-ARH AT BILASPUR IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATT _PETIT10NER 1/ RESPONDEglE t 1. /..’ My °7"§’$f‘.‘§° @XQ-féi": .. .r M @Q? ' (v “55/ x9 0‘ 15‘ /\,"' ‘e ,eRA Q‘s Son of late Champalal Sethia Aged 67 years r/o. village Koliari, The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Revenue Board, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawall, Kaipur The Collector Dhaimal'i The Tehsildar, Dhamtari Uttam Devangan Aged 39 years,son 13/0. Village Koliyari, Tehsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) // M MV If #"_a-m& LN NATURE SSUAN CE OF WKI’l‘ Bhanwarlal Sethia Tehsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) VER$US of 8hauram Devangan, wRIT PETITION No.?>%% OF 2003/ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226(227 OF THE CONS’l‘l’l‘U'l‘ION OF CERTEORARY, OF INDIA MANDAMUS FOR l PROI IIBITION AND OTHER CTION OR DIRECTIONS SUITABLE WRIT OR WRI’I‘S, DIRE , ORDER OR ORDERS, . @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPURv WRIT PETITION NO.3804 OF 2003 (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) ingie Bench : Hon’ble Sri Satish Kt Agnihotri, J. Preset :- Shri Rahui Tamaskar, Advate,for the petitier. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel LaWyer for the State. Ms Sharma Sihai, Advocate for the respondent No.4. ii ng (Pased this 23 day of October, 2010) 1. By this pition, the petitioner chailenges the Iegality and vlidity of et a e order dated 4-2003 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, th 8- in appeal No.535/A-59/2002-03 (hawar/al Seth/a V. Uttam Bn Dewangan & Another), whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected on the round of delay. g 2. Learned ounsel apering for the petioner submits th the c pa it at resndent No.4 was ante a lease of an abadi la bearing po grd nd khra No.731/2 area 0.0 ctare situated at village oliari, Tahsil as 1 he K & istrict Dhamtari, for construcion of a hoe. Thereafter, the D t us respondent No.4 encroached the adjacnt land and constructe a e d hotel nstead of house. The petitioner reported te matter t he i h o t Additional Cector, aipur. After due enquir, the same was oll R y iissed by order dated 20—6-1995 (Annexure — P). dsm /8 Thereaainst, the petioner preferred an appeal on 31-1-2002 i.e. g ti after lapse of about 61/2 years, which wa arred by limitation. Alg s b on with appeal, the petitioner also filed an aliction for condonation of ppa delay. The said appeal was dismissed by the learned Board of Revenue by order dated 4-8-2003 (Annexure - P/1) on the ground of delay and laches.. Thus, this petition. \ / / S h n oc on ORDER (ORAL) s on m PETITIONER Bhanwarla! Sethia Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others -2.[3 Cw On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue. l have heard learned oounsel appearing for the parties, perused pieadings and the documents appended thereto. The petitioner has not shown Sufficient and cogent reason for causing inordinate delay about 61/2 years. The iearned Board of Revenue after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case rightly passed the impugned order and the same does not warrant any interference of this Court. This Court is declined to condone delay on payment of some cost. The petitioner categorically stated that he is not in a position to pay any cost for condonation of delay. Be that as it may, it is well-nigh established that the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with th‘e order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which are not available in the present case. ln the result, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and ' is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. ‘_ J—m,‘ —«’\ ‘ i Sd/- Satish K. Agm'hotli:;"‘ ‘ ‘ Judge