HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH_AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON No. 1029 of2005 PETmONERS : 1. Liladhar Agrawal S/'o Shri Hri Ram Agrawal, aged aboirt 49 years. 2. Vinod Agrawal S/o Hari Ram Agrawal, aged about 44 years. R/oNailaDisst. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) V^ERSUS RESPONDENTS ; 1. State of Chhattisgarh Throu^i - Disst. Collector, .Jajgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Revenue Board of CHhattisgarh, Bilaspur (C.G.) 'ATUT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF BMDL^ SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aemhotri. J. Present: Shri Avinash Mishra; Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S.KacUhwaha, Deputy Advocate General forthe State. ORALORDER 1. (Passed oa 22"°day of Jsaaaaiy, 2009) With the consent of leamed counsel for fhe parties, the matter is heard fmally. The Board of Revenue, Bilaspur by order dated 27.10.2004 (Armexure P/l) passed in appeal No. 197/A-67/02-03 dismissed the appeal preferred against the order dated 17.11.1999 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa, in case No. 33/A-67/97-98, whereby recovery of Rs. 44,000/- was directed to be made. The appeal was filed on 20.06.2000 (Annexure P/6) alongwith an application for condonation of delay under fhe provisions of Section 5 ofthe Limitatioc Act. The ground stated in the application was that on 8.10.1999 the petitioner could not appear in the matter on account ofa strike obsen'ed by the members ofthe Bar Association, therefore, he was not aware of ,f-,g.f^k'% ^'9k^ ^ 1 ^ ^SsB<-y,y 4. the next date ofhearing i.e. 17.11.1999. The case was proceeded ex- parte on 8.10.1999 and thereafter the order vvas passed on 17.11.1999. It was farther stated that the appellant eaine to know about the order on 10.6.2000 for the first time and thereafter fhe petitioner took immediate steps and filed an appeal on 26.6.2000 alongwith an application for ^ condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Board of Revenue, after having considered the appiication ofthe petitioner, came to conclusion > that no document has been prpduced ia support ofthe fact that there was a strike observed by the Advocates on 8.10.99. Be that as it may, the fact ofstrike observed by the members ofthe Bar Association may not be proved by the documents and that too it was diflicult for a clientto prove in absence ofany paper or document given to him by the Bar Association. Having regard to the facts and circumstanees offhe case, delay in filing the appeal before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur is condoned. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, to consider and decide tfae case afresh on merit, in accordance with law. Consequently, M(W)P No. 1426/2005, stands disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit '^