^..'-.^^ Petitjoner Writ Petition (227) No.24 of Anand Kumar S/o Jagat Narayan Agrawal, Aged about 63 years, R/o Om Mandir, Om Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) R.espQndents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Vers^s StatQ of Chhattlsgarh Through Secretary Revenue Department. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Sub-DJvisional Officer (Revenuo) Raipur, DlstS.-Raipur (C.G.) Coiiector, R^ipur, Dlstt.-Raspur (C.G.) Executivo Enginoer, Uppar yahanadi Divlsjon, irrigation Department, Raipur, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) s^ Tho Board of Revenuo Chhattisgarh, BIJaspur (C.G.) (Writ Pststson undsr Articie 227 of the Constitution of India) Mr.J.K.Shashtri, counsoj forthe petltjonor. Mr.Ajay Dwivedi, Dy.Govt.Advocate for respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4/State. hiNK^ (SS: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharms, J.) ORDER(ORAL) (11-7-2011) 1. By this pstitlon under Article 227 of the Constitution of !ndla ths petitloner has challsngecj the legaiity and proprsety of the order datod 16.6.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue in Rsvisw Revsnue Case No. 12/8-121/2003»04 whereby Board of Rever.ue has dismissed ths review petitson reiating to order dated 23.4.2003 passed by the Board of Revenue in Rev©nu©Csse No.48/B- 121/2002-03. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the partles, perused ths ofdsr impugned and other documonts fiiod on behalf ofthe petitioner 3. InitiaEEy Revenue Case No.634/B-92(B)A1997-98 was pendlng befors th8 AdditionaE Commissioner, Raipur which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order datea' 13.11 .1988. Probably at the sams tame post of Commjssloner and AdditionaS Commissioner were abolished by the State Government and cases pending bofore thom were stand transforred to Board of Rovenue. After lapse of four years on 30/10.2002 petition for restoratlon was filed and same was dismissed vide order dated 23.4.2003. Th@ aforesaid order was chailenged bsfore the Board of Revenus in review petition under Ssctiori 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revsnue Code, 1959 which has aiso bsen dismlssed. 4, Loarned counsei for the potitloner submits that applicant has duly engaged tho counsei to represent hjm, therefore, thore was no necessity for his personal appearance. counsel was not present at the tlme of hearing and therefore, th? appeai was dismlssed. Learned counss! further submits that aftor handlng ovor the case-to the counsei 11 was duty of the counsei to represent tho party and party shouSd not suffer for misdemeanour or Inaction of his counsel» ; 5. Learned counsei piacsd rQJiancs in ths mattsr of Raflz and another v. Munshiiai and another In whsch the Supreme Court has heid that party shouici not suffer for misdemeanour or inaction of his counsel, Learned counse! further piacsd reiianc®in the matter of SmtLaehi Tewari and others v. Director of Land Reeords and others In whlch the Supreme Court has hoid that aftor engagJng three Sawyers nothing wouid b@ oxpected from tho petitioaer to watch his case« On the aforesaid ground delay of seven years was condoned. 6. On the other hands, learned Deputy Govornment Advocate appearing for tho State opposes the petition and submite that aithough day-to-day attendance or watching of the case by party is not requlred, but at ioast counselof the party shouid be JRtJmated for his case in reasoRabte sntervai, but the petstioner has not taksn care for his case for four years, sv@n he has not mentionQd th© ground m the applicatlon for rssioratson. Only he has mentloned that hls counsei is not appeared before the Court on unknown cause, 7. Whlie dssmjssing the appiication for restoration of the appeai vsd@ ordsr dated 23.4.2003 the Board of Revenue has arrived at a fsnding that the present potitioner was moro nogiigent then his counsol for four years whlch also refiects from the affidavit Sied in support ofthe appiicatjon and aiso in support of appiication for condonation of dsEay that he came to know th©ordsr dated 23.11.2003 on 29.10.2002. Same iteeif is contradlctory. After dssmissai ofthe appjjcataon for restoration there is no propriety for fijjng rovjew petition. No ground was svaisabie to the petitioner. Aforesaid orders and actson of the party refsect that the petstioner v»'as negligent for his case and hss not taken proper care of his case. 1AIR 1981 SC 1400 2ASR1984SC41 p s- 8. This is not a case that the petltjoner has appointed mor©than one lawyer for watching his case.. ev©nthereafter case was dismissed or onSy the counse! was negiigent. !t shows that the petitloner was nogiigent of hss case, therefore, Board of Revenue has rightly dismissed the appiication for rsstoration and aiso for reviow potition. 9. Consequentiy, i do not fmd any iitegaiity }n the order impugnsd wsrrantlRg interfsrsnce in exercise of appeiiste jurisdiction/supervisory junsdiction. The petitlon Is Siabie to be dismissed and it is hersby dismissed. No order as to ccsts, . ! Sd/- T.P. Shanna Judge /