c HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.7111 of 2010 c^ PETITIONER/: (Non-applicantNo.1) RESPONDENTS/: Aniruddha Bishwas, S/o Shri A.M. Bishwas, aged about 43 years, R/o Hemu Nagar, Torwa, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1, Rajesh Yelukar, S/o Shri M.R. Yelukar, (Applicant) R/o Shankar Nagar, Near Mohan Building, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) {Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal with Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A.R.K. Rao, counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORDER (21-9-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 23-11- 2010 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Revision Case NO.RN/02/R-B-121/387/2010 whereby the Board of Revenue has quashed the order dated 7-6-2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in Revision Case No.168/B- 121/2009-10. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and copies ofother documents. 3. The order impugned clearly reveals that without providing opportunity of hearing on the application for condonation of long delay, the Additional Commissioner has allowed the application and condoned the delay, and 2 7S thereby committed illegality. On this ground, the Board of Revenue has quashed the order dated 7-6-2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner and the proceeding pending before the Additional Commissioner came to an end by the order impugned. Before condoning the delay in filing revision, the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur was under obligation to provide opportunity of hearing to the opposite party i.e. respondent No.1 herein, but without providing such opportunity, the Additional Commissioner has condoned the delay and thereby committed illegality. The Board of Revenue has rightly held that the Additional Commissioner has committed illegality by not providing opportunity of hearing to respondent No.1 herein, but by quashing the entire proceeding pending before the Additional Commissioner, the Board of Revenue itself has committed illegality. 4. Consequently, the order impugned dated 23-11-2010 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Revision Case No.RN/02/R-B-121/387/ 2010 and the order dated 7-6-2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in Revision Case No.168/B- 121/2009-10 are hereby quashed. The Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur shall provide opportunity of hearing to the parties on the application for condonation of delay and pass order afresh. 5. Parties are directed to remain present before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur on 15th of November. 2011. 6. With the above direction, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 7. Consequently, I.A.Nos.1 & 2 also stand disposed of. Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge