^ ^ (S£> petjtioner Appiicant HIGh COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT^ILASPUR Writ Petition (Art.227) No.3022 of 2009 Smt.Gayatri, D/o Abhiram, aged about 33 years, R/o ViJlage - Negurdlh, Tahsli-Nawagarh, Djstrict - Janjglr- Champa (C.G.) Respondents Non-appSlcants Ves^us 1. SmtPar»vati Bai, D/o Abhiram, R/o VIJEage - Negurdih, Tahsl! - Nawgarh, District-Janjgjr-Champa (C.G.) 2. Smt.Chandrika Bai Wsciow of DwariE<a, R/o ViJiage-Negurdih, TahsiS- Nawagarh, District-Janjglr-Champa 3. Board of Revcnuo, Bilaspur, Tahsll and District-BJiaspur (C.G.) (Writ Petition under Artide 227 of the Constitution of indla) yr,V.VJjay Rao, coufisoi forthe potiiioner. None prosont for rospondents ?^o/1 and 2. (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharms, J.) ORDER (Passedon 14-7-2011) 1.< On tho ground of avoidsng of ser^jco, permlssion for substitution of service has beon granted to the potitioner in compjiance of-the order dated 3.5,2Ca1C\ Notice has been pubilshed In dai!y Nav Bharat dated 15 June, 2010. but respondonts No/1 and 2 have not mado their appoarance, jn these drcunistances, counsel for the petltioner Is hoard ex-parto. 2. 5y this petition under Artlcle 227 of ths Constitution of india the petstioner has chaljonged tho legality and propriety ofthe ordor datod 15/1.2Q09 (Annexure P/1) passsd bythe Board of Revsnue jn Rsvision Case No.R.124/A-6/2004- 05 , affirmlng tho order dated 19.11,04 (Annexure P/3) by th@ Collsctor, Janjgir Champa in Rsvision Case No.14/A-6/2003-04, whersby th© ©pplicationfor condonation of delay fsled before the Sub Dsvlsionai C'ffjcer, Janjgir and th©order dated 4.5.04 in Case No.20/A-6/2003-04 has been rovarsed. ^'^. ?:' &. ..^ 1 '%gp '». -&^ ^ 3 :11 ^ -X- c^ 3. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that respondent Smt.ParA'ati Bas flied an appiication befors the Tahsiidar for mutation showing herseif as the petitloner and committed cheating by pursonation. On the - basis of her appjjcation order has been passed by the Tahsildar. When the aforesalci order came into knowiedge of the present petitioner she prefsrrsd an appeal beforo the Sub Dlvisjonai Officer, in which sho has fiied appjicatlon for condonation' of deiay in fiiing tho appoal. On the ground of aforesajd facts, the Sub DivisionaE Oiffcer has condoned the deEay in fillng the appeai. Same was chaSienged before the CoSiector, Janjgir Champ and the Coilector has reverssd the order of condonlng the deEay. Same has been malntained by the Board of Revenue vlde ordor impugned. Loamod counsel furlhor submlts that thls §s a caso of choating and forgQr/ and when tho petjtlonor came to S<nowledgQ roiating to such choating and forgery thon she has fllod appeal.. In the prosont caso, tho Coiiector has aiso sent appiication for examinatlon to expert and aforesasd mattor is under investlgation^ Those grounds aro suiTident for condoning tho doiay in fiSing tho 'appoai, but the Courts beiow have jSlQgaiiy reversed ths order of condonation of deiay In fijing ths appeal. 4. Aforesaid orders reveal that th©Tahsildar hss aiready tsken action reiatlng to such offence. Sn these circumstances, proper opportunity of hearing to the parties was nocossary and oniy cn the ground of tochnjcaijty or the fact that. the pstitionsr has not msntionsd the fact when the aforesaid order cams into his knowlodgo and ciosing of her right was notjust and proper. 5. In oxerciso of supewsoB^y jurisdiction, the petition is allowed. Order dated 15J»2009 (Annexure P/1) passed b.y the Board of Revenuo and the ora'or dated 19,11.04 (Annexure P/3) passed bythe. Col!ector, Janjgir Champa are hereby quashod. No order as to costs. — Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^