IN THE HIGH COURT oVcHHAniSGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P.fCINO. Ut>/2007 %Ey Petitioner -Srnt.Chetna Surana /^s—L\-S'~lc'<iu^ W/o Shri Anand Surana, Through - General Power of Attorney Holder Anand Surana, S/o Shri Devraj Singh Surana, R/o Civil Lines, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ResDondents .^ ^ <• ^ /y/ /!/./ ^9^/ ^ty" ^ >•"" £''^ y 4.. M/s Natural Status Firm Thorugh Partner—Proprietor Shri D.P.Gandhi, S/o Shri Prakashrao Gandhi, R/o Nemichand, Gali No.2, Ramsagar Para, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.j. Board of Revenue through its Presiding Officer, Chhattisgarh. The Additional Collector, Raipur (C.G.) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Raipur (C.G.) ^. The Tahsildar, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22^ OFTHE '"•'^. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION(C) N0.116 OF 2007 Smt. Chetna Surana RESPONDENTS Versus M/s Natural Status Firm & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. • Present:- Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate forthe petitioner. None for the respondent No,1. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 3rd day of December, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 30-01-2006 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Board of Revenue in revision case No.78/A-6/2004-05 (Smt. Chetna Sucana v. M/s Natural Status Firm), by which the revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Shri Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the owner of land bearing Khasra Nos.258/1, 4, 5, 6 and a part of 7 and 257/72, 56, 86 and a part of 59 admeasuring 0.919 hectares situated at village-Bhathagaon, Patwari Circle No. 105, Raipur. According to the petitioner, the petitioner purchased the said lands from respondent No.1. Learned counsel further submits that on an application made by the respondent No.1 through its Proprietor, D.P. Gandhi, the Tahsildar vide order dated 13-08-2004 (Annexure P/3), without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, directed to mutate the name of the respondent No.1 against the land bearing Khasra Nos. 257/581, 257/584 & 258/25. 3. Shri Patankar, submits that after knowing about the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur, along with an application for grant of interim relief and an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Sub Divisional Officer after considering the case granted an interim relief in favour ofthe petitioner on 05-01-2005 (Annexure P/6). 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.l preferred a revision before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector by order dated 29-08-2005 (Annexure P/7) set aside the order passed SSSSSx. § Isfc.iS®'-.. 1 '<i!Sa^.S;^c' by the Sub Divisional Officer holding that the petitioner has not assigned cogent and sufficient reasons before the Sub Divisional Officer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Thereagainst, the petitioner approached the Board of Revenue by filing revision, which was also rejected on 30-01-2006 (Annexure P/8) in an illegal and arbitrary manner. and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its letter and spirit. Thus, this petition. 5. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondent No.1, though return has been filed. 6. Having heard leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it appears that the appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13-08-2004 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Tahsildar before the Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur, on 3-1-2005. The Sub Divisional Officer condoned the delay on 21-3-2005 and fixed the matterfor consideration on merit. 7. Thereagainst, the respondent No.1 preferred a revision before the Additional Collector in case No.51/A-6/2004-05. Th'e Additional Collector, Raipur, by order dated 29-8-2005 (Annexure P/7) set aside the order dated 21-3-2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. The Board of Revenue, in further revision filed by the petitioner, confirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector holding thatthe Sub Divisional Officerhas no Jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the appeal, as the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short "the Act, 1963") are not applicable. 8. Be that as it may, without examining the question of applicability of the provisions of the Act, 1963 to the revenue proceedjpgs, the fact remains that there was a delay of about 40 days, as projected by the petitioner, when the limitation period was 45 days. The petitioner in her application before the SDO has explained the sufficient causes, which prevented the petitioner from filing the appeal before the SDO. The Tahsildar passed the order dated 13-8-2004, which came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 28-12-2004. Thereafter, she took steps to file appeal at the earliest and filed the same on 3-1-2005 before the SDO. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the interest ofjustice and to administer equitable justice, the ^— :S i' 1^3^^^S%^K' %, , • 10. 11 delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner before the SDO is condoned. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 29-8-2005 (Annexure P/7) and 30-1-2006 (Annexure P/8) are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the SDO, Raipur, for considering the same in accordance with law and on its own merits. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the aforesaid observation made by this Court shall not be construed, as observation on merit while deciding the case. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. ;o;.^'ri Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge