HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No.3006 of2006 Petitioner Non-applicant No.1 Respood^nts State of Chhattisgarh, through Janjgir-Champa (Chhatti^arh) f-S'ss-4- 1-.-T •-.<•«^..rl-rl.' 1. 1A. Versus Sadanand Gadariya (dled) Ramnath S/o. Sadanand Gadariya, Age 48 years, R/o. College Road, Ward No.2, Champa, Tahsil- Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) 1B. Rambai D/o. Sadanand (^dariya, Age 51 years R/o. Nflllage Bhanwannal, Post Pucheli, Tahsil- Champa, Dlstrict-Janjgir-Champa (CG) 2. Rudreshwar Sharan, aged about 70 years, S/o Chttrabhan Singh (Former Land Lord) R/o : Gram Champa, Tahsll : Champa, Distt.: Janjgir- Champa (Chhattisgarh) 0/Vrit Petition under Articte 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Mr.Sushil Dubey, Govt.Advocate for the petitioner/State. MrAshok Verma, counsel f6r respondents. (S8: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Shamia, J.) ORDERfORALt (12-8-2011) By this writ petition under Artlcte 227 of the Constitution of tndia the petitioner/State has chaltenged the legality & propri^y ofthe order dated 21.11.2003 (Annexure P/14) passed bythe Boardof Revenue, Bilaspur in Revision Case No.208/A-90(B)/2002-2003, whereby the Board of Revenue has reversed the order dated 11.2.2003 passed by the Additional Commlssioner, Janjgir-Champa. As per copy of the orders, proceeding under the provislons of the Chhattisgarh Ceiling onAgricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (for short Itre Act, 1960") was inltlated against respondent No.2 Rudeshwar Sharan .^^c'"^?;'. .^' ..*... "^l. §? 8''i"s¥SS>, I '^^•^lSffi^t ^ 1 '"£»-3-°'ilj ;? ^r?? 4. ^ Singh and his wife Smt.Beenadevi before the Addltlonal Collector competent authority in case of land situated In two different tahsil of ^ime district in terms of Section 2 (e) (ii) of the Act, 1960 prior to 1989. Final order was passed. Thereafter, original objector/respondent Sadanand Gadriya preferred appeal against the order dated 19.5.8& (Annexure P/8) before the Additional Commisstoner, BilSBpur Dh/ision, Bilaspur and vide order dated 24.8.2002 passed in Appeal Case Nos.308/A-90/2001-2002 the Addltional Commissioner has rejected clalm of Sadanand Gadriya on the ground that property was transferreel to hlm before enforcement of the Act. He has preferred revision before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior In Revislon Case N0.2530-3/2)02 and vide order dated 30.10.2002 (Annexure P/12) the Board of Revenue, Gwalior has reversed the order passed by the Additional Commissloner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur and remanded the case for fresh reconsideration. After remand of'the case, the Additional Collector, Janjgir-champa passed the order dated 11.2.2003 (Annexure P/13) in Ceillng Case No.1/A^O(B)^(X}2-2X)3 and agaln dtemlssed the claim of Sadanand Gadriya. Samewas challenged beforethe Board of.Revenue, Bilaspur and vide order dated 25.7.2003 the Board of Revenue has converted the appeal into revision on the ground Uiat State Government has not decided about competent authority for hearing the appeat, therefore, same Is converted into revision under the provlsions of Section 42 of the Act, 1960. Finally vide order dated 21.11.2003 the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur has quashed theorder fMSsed by the Additional Commissioner, Janjgir-Champa in Ceiling Case No.1/A- 90(B)/2(X)2-2003, which was under challenge before this Court. s 1 have heard leamed counsel Tor the parties, perused the order impugned and other documents filedon behalf ofthe parties. Leamed counsel for the petitioner/State submite that while passing the order impugned the Board of Revenue has not considered the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and has quashed the order without appreciating the material evidence and thereby commttted illegality. On the other hand, leamed counsel for respondents opposesthe petttton and submits that firstly the writ petition is hopetessly barred by llmitation K -3 and no relief can be granted to the petitioner on the basis of petltion flled after lapse of more than three years and without applicatlon for condonation of delay, p^ition te not maintalnable. Leamed counsel further submits that after passing of order of Board of Revenue third [rarty interest has been created and respondents have sold some land to other persons. Leamed counsel contended that only on the ground thsrt some wrong provislon has been qurted the Court having jurisdtetion does not cease Its jurisdtotion. 6. Leamed counsel placed reliance in the matter of Banda Deveto|Nnent Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agrawrail and Ors.'1 in which the Supreme Court has hetd that on the ground that Devetopment Authority has incurred huge expenditure but also created third party rights and wrlt petition flled bylandowner after delay of 9 yeare from date of declaration and six years from date of passing of land acquisition award, petttton is not maintainabte. Leamed counsel further placed retiance in the matter of Kamla Devi Budhia (Smt.) v. H»nPrabha- Ganguli2 In whloh the Supreme Court has held that jurisdiction v^ted in same Court and suit fiied quoting wrong provision should be treated under correcA provision. Learned counset also placed reliance In the matter of State of U.P. v. Phota and etc.3 in which the High Court of Allahabad has held that fiist appeat flled on behalf of the State after lapse of 283 days and m> piausible explanation has been offered, therefore, flret appeal was not maintainable and barred by limitation. Learned counsel relied uppn the matter of R.C.Chaudhry v. M/s. Prestige Finance andChit Fund Co.Pvt.Ltd.,4 in whteh the High Court of Delh! has held that civil revision filed after the period of ItmitaUon and no applteatlon for condonation of delay has been filed, then revision is not maintainabte as timebarred. Leamed counsel also relied upon the matter of Dr.Rajendra Dub^ v. State of M.P. & others8 In which writ petiUon for quashlng the allotment order of land filed after a period of four yeare from the date of allotment that is after a lapse of considerable period and no explanation of delay given, this Court is not inclined to issue writ. Leamed counsel plac©d 12011A1RSCW28% 2M.P.W.N.1989(II)(SC) 3AIR 1991 Allahabad 229 4AIR 1996 Delhi 382 520G2(1)C.G.L.J.175 -^f-- reliance in the matter of State ef C.G. & Othws v. Shakuntala Jain & others6 in which this Court has held that Misc. Appeal fited after a period of 441 days without any cogent reason Is not maintainable as time barred. Leamed counsel further placed reliance in the matterof State of M.P. v. Bapulal & (<hers in which Hlgh Court of Madhya Prad h has held that in case of Ceillng on Agricultural Hoteiings Act, 19®}before amendment in Section 4, competent authority was not ennpowered to enquire into the matter relating to sale deed acecuted prior to publicaBon of Bill. 7. Admittedly as per documents, order dated 11.2.2003 |»ssed by the Addnionat Collector, Janjgir-Champa In Ceiling Case No.1/A-90(B)^002- 2(X)3 was appeaiable under Section 41 (i) in terms of SecUon 2 (e) (il) of the Act, 19K) and as per second proviso of Section 42, revislon against such appealable order Was not maintainable. 8. In the present case, there was no amblguity relating to competen<^ of appellate authority. Even otherwise, by reaspned order appellate authority was not competent to convert the appeal into reviston on the ground that although the appeal is maintainable, but in absence of decision relating to appellate authority it cannot be converted into revision whlch the Board of Revenue has passed vide order dated 25.7.2003. 9. The present writ pet'rtion has been flled after lapseof aboyt three years i.e. after conskterable delay, but there is no limitation In flltngwrit petition, therefore, facts of the cases of Phota and etc. and R.C.Chaudhry (supra) are distinguishable to that of the present case. 10. As hekl by this Court in the matter of Dr.Rajendra Dubey ^upra), in case of considerable delay of four yeare, this Court has declined to issue writ. 11. As held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kamla Devi Budhia (Smt.) (supra), quotation ofwrong provision is not fatal tothe party or forum to exereise the jurisdlction, but in the present ca^, ttie Board of Revenue knowing well the factthat order was appealable andthere was 82(M7(3)C.G.LJ.522 T1989RN411(HighCourt) •\ -y- no amblguity relating to appellate authortty convatedthe ap(»aMnto revision, for which the Board of Revenue was not competent. Sectioiv41 of the Chhattlsgarh Land Revenue Code, i35Q was suitably amCTided vtde Act No.11 of 2003 whteh came into force from 23.113!Q02MnGase of any amblguity relating to appeltate authority the BoardoT Revenue would have dismissed the appeal on the grourol of (»m|»tency,but It was not competent to convert the appeal into revtsion onthe aforesaid ground. 12. By converting the appeal into revislon, the Board of Revenue has eommitted serious itlegatity and by passing such order the Board of Revenue has committed illegal'rty warranting interferenee in exercise of supervisory jurisdtetion, even after lapse of considerable time. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Orderdated 21.11.2003 (Annexure P/14) passed bythe Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Reviston Case No.208/A-90(B)/2002-2003 is hereby quashed. Case is remttted to the Court of Board of Revenue, Bllaspur. The Board of RevCTue stell hear the parties in the light of aforesakl tegal provisions aml observaUon and pass the order afresh. The Board of Revenue may transfer the case to the authortty competent to hear the appeat. Partles are directed to remain present before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur pn 21J9.2011 for further proceedings ofthe case. No order as to co^s. 14. tnterim applteations stand disposed of. Sal- T.P. Sharma Judge