@ QRWV IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. J6! 3P 12003 PETITIONER Jhadu Singh,aged QQ years S/ o. Lachan Singh Sidar, R/ o Village Kanekara, Tah. 8L Distt.Mahasamund (C.G.) RESPONDENTS K1 VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretory Revenue Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Vishram, aged about 6O years S/ o. Sakhi Sohan, aged about 45 years S/o. Pyare Deepak, aged about 35 years S/ o. Keshav Uttam Kumar, aged about 3O Years S/ 0. Keshav Shivdhar, aged about 28 years S/ o. Keshav No. 2 to 6 are R/o. Village Kanekera, Tah. and Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) Sub— Divisional-Officer Mahasamund Tahsil and Distt. Mahasamund (C . G.) Revenue Board of Chhattisgarh Through Presiding Officer Circuit Court, Raipur (C.G.) I WWW—m, W135,W mm . wk mJaw‘ma Wt 200 m m (agigaw) Wggam mm wm §¥afrma11és1 SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 07-04-2010 , Shri L.C.Dash, counse! for the pe‘ ‘ t Shri Vinod Tekam, Pane! Lawyerf r the State/respondents No.1 and 7‘ Shri Sunil Sahu, counse! for resp ndents No.2,4,5 and 6. None for respondent No.3, though erved. This petition hasbeen med by th petih'oner aggrieved by the order dated 2210412003 passed by the Board of R enue in Case No,28IA-23 of 2002-03 (Annexure P—1) by which petitioner’s ap ication for condonation of defay in ming revision has been rejected and the revisi n was dismissed. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to aboriginal tribe and he had submitted an application under Section 70-B of C.Gr Land Revenue, 1959 for return of his land before the Sub-Divisi nal 0F0cer, Mahasamund. Vide order dated 13105I2002. his application was ejected against which an appeal was preferred before the Collector who also dismissed the same Vide order dated 27/03/2002. Thereafter, the petitioner had entrusted papeis to his counsel for tiling revision before the Board of Revenue. However, later on, a petition was tiled a before the Board of Revenue though h some detay on account of reasons mentioned in application for condonation f delay Submisswn of learned counsel f r the petitioner is mat sufhcient cause t the Board of Revenue rejected the was shown for condonation of delay, application mechanically without applyin its mind to the cause shown by the petitioner in his application for condonatio of delay. On the other hand, submission of earned counsel for respondents No.2, 4, 5 and 6 is that the order was passed by e Collector on 27108/2002 whereas the petition was med before the Board of Re enue on 9‘” January 2003. He submits that because of such a long delay, for h ich, there was no sutticient cause was t ‘ ma/mzm 200 mm (‘wgxm Wafgam ~2" shown, no megality was committed by application and the petitioner was not eni A perusai of the impugned order Revenue shows ihat no considerah'on recorded in the order is that no sufhcieni order passed by the Board of Revenue c It was obligatory on the part of the Board by the petitioner in his appiication for cor principles with regard to condonation application for condonation of delay is 1 Revenue has exceeded its jurisdicti considering the cause shown in the appli In this view of the matter, the 22/4/2003 is set aside and the case petitioner’s application for condonation o It is made clear that this court h s not expressed any opinion with regard to the meris of the application for con onah‘on of delay or on the merits of the revision petition or its mainhinability. it consider all the aspects. The pen'n'on is accordingly allowe . mmw ammm WW§WW ‘éwif‘emm the Board of Revenue in rejecting the :itled to any relief. dated 22l04l2003 passed by the Board of has been made All that has been tcause has been shown. Apparently, the ontains no reasons at all and is perverse. of Revenue to consider the cause shown donation of delay by applying well setlted of delay. Mechanical rejection of the herefore clearly illegal and the Board of n in rejecting the application without ation. order of Board of Revenue paSsed on is remanded for due consideration of delay in hling revision. \L“ {uh ''J Deepu ill be open for the Board of Revenue to d/ Manindra Moia'; S Judge hriVastava m