(D &9%3gma&E wwa IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR if Wm ‘ WRIT PETITION (227) N0. 61%g OF 2011 y g WRIT PETITION‘IUNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ) OF INDIA PETITIONERS /’ 1. Smt. Veenapani Sahani D/o late APPLICANTS Ambarish Sahani, Paul Abw- 4 1V”? / 2. Ku. Santoshini Sahani D/o late Ambarish Sahani, WW z; YW /, 3. Ku. Dewani Sahani D/o Late Ambarish Sahani, Wu; Mag-4} 11;)6’“? P Sangram Sahani‘ S/o Late Ambarish Sahani, awe; Abba; 2+yun \ A11 R/o M.I.G. C — 449, Padmanabhpur, Durg,__ Tahsil 85 District — Durg (C.G.} VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, NON-APPLICANTS Through : The Collector, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 2.. Superintendent of Land Record ’V Diversion Branch, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) / 3. Smt. Princekilla Sahani W/o Late Rajendra Kurnar Sahani, R/o M.IG. 1-197 Hudco Bhilai, District — Durg (Chhattisgarh) Sakshi Sahani D/o Late Rajendra Kumar Sahani, 5. Abhishek Sahani S/o Late Rajendra § _ / Kurnar Sahani, J Respondents No. 4 85 5 are being 3 minor through mother Smt. i Princekiua Sahani, R/o MIG. 1—197 '5 Hudco Bhilai, District - Durg i (Chhattisgarh) HIGH C$LJR3‘ (33F CHHATTJ$GARH AT B§L££PUR Writ P&fi§:é0n (22?: Mo. £333 of 2!)” PETITfQNERfz: Sml. Veemapani $a‘nani and atherg. Varsus RE$PONDEW‘?‘3 State of Chhai’tiwarh and owes, wRW PETlTiON UNQER ARTICLE 22? G! THtn GON$TWUK§N 0;”: ‘ R‘JQEA ($$: Hw‘me Mr. MK. Aaarwai, J.} F3resent : Mr. Samay K. Ag:‘awa§, counsa fmine petiticmers. Mr. Arum Sac, GA fer the Siatefrespcrzdenis N3, 4; and 2‘ Mr. A5hok Kuma! Emuwa‘ ccunsei r'm' responden’c3 N0. 3 i0 5 QRMQwMEEi (05.0?20‘1 1) ’l One Ambaris‘n Saham’ preferred a mutation appitcation before the $uperihtendent of Land Record Diveraon Branch, BHasmur. During perydency of the above appffcatéon‘ said Ambarish Sahani died and his Jegai represemative Le, petiticmera herein preferred appticatian far 3ubstrturr0n 0f their names in his piaCe. The matter waits heard by rewondwt No. 2 on ihe abcve appiication and is fixed far pasgmg ihe order. Without passing any order, suddenly 0n 21. 402009 the case wae fixed for appiicanis‘ evidence and the oame was dismissed for non prosecution on 26.1 1 2009. 2, By iiiing restoration appiioation petitionere brought the above recto to the norice of rne resoondenr No. 2 and aiso prayed for reeioraiion of the ease. The above appiioation wee dismissed by rhe respondent No. 2 on the ground inat the petitioners have faiied i0 aeeign sufficient cause for not filing the restoration appiication within m 3O days. Revieion preferred by the petitioners; was aieo dismieeed by the Coiiector vide impugned order dated 27.122010 Hence, thie petition, 3. Shri $anjay Ki Agrawai, teamed couneei appearing for the petitioner wouid eubmit: without passing any order on petitionere' appiication for substitution of their name in piece or“ deoeased/eppiicent, the case has been wrongiy dismissed in defauit, i We, e ,_ A “mom; ‘ i mi “mm.“ my, mmewmiwwummmmwwweewrwwwmwa;rmiwinix w: 2 \ in View of above dismissal 0f petitioners; restoration applicaiion is per se illegal and without jurisdiction 4i On the other hand, Shri Ashok Kumar Shukia; ieamed counsei appearing for ihe respondents No. 3 to 5 supported the order impugned and wouid submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case; learned Additional Collector as well as the revisional authority have rightly dismissed the petitioners application for restoration and orders deserve to be upheld. 5V l have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including impugned order 6. The case was posted for order on petitioners’ substitution application Order sheet dated 2141042009 reveals that petitioners’ opportunity of hearing was cloeed and the matter was fixed for petitioners evidence; however, it is not clear from the order sheet; on what subject the petitioners‘ opportunity of hearing has been Closed and for what purpose the matter has been posted for evidence The above error is apparent on the face of record. Without passing any order on petitioners application for substitution, the dismissal of petitioners case on the .i'eoe is bad and without juriediction. The petitioners have brought ail the facts to the notice of respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the respondent No 2 shouid have restored the case and tired the case for passing ot’ the orders on petitioners substitution application and, thereatter, should have proceeded with the case in accordance with law, By not doing so, the order passed by respondent No. 2 as well as by the revisional authority suffers from jurisdictional iliegality leading to manifest injustice to the petitioners. 7, For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 27.12.2010 as well as order passed by respondent No, 2 are set aside; restoration application filed by the petitioners is aliowed; the matter is remanded back for hearing in accordance with law after passing order on petitioners’ restoration application. Since the matter is very old, it is expected from the court below to decide the matter expeditiously. 8. No order as to costs. Sd/— N.K. Agrawal Judge i .. . ”MsJ