^ »Tin'6r IIGH COURT OF CHHAT'I'ISGA AT BIi WKIT PETITION (O No. 6197 of2007 PETITIONER Smt. Gouri Bai Wifc of Shri Kashiram Sahu, aged 's> 1 about 48 years, Saq?aiich, Gram Paticfaayat Bhawanipur. Tahsil Palari. District Raipur ('C.G.) TT?ITTt£tTT~i The Additional Collector. Balodabazar. District Raipw (C.O.) 2. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Prescribed AutSiority, Balodabazar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. 'tlie Naib Tahsildar. Rupesh Kumar Verma. Presidmg OfEcer, Paiari, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Aehaiiuram Son ofMannulal Nishad. 5. Taraiilal Son ofBhukliaii Siug!i Dlu-uv. 6. Shakuntala Wife of'Bodhiram Sahu 7. Umrao SinghSonofLatel Dhniv 8. PaiTfiatiaiid son ofMaiitram Sahu 9. ChhitaBaiWifeofPardeshiSahu lO.Amrit Bai Wife of'Keshavram Dhruv 11. Diieshwar Son of Tejram Sahu 12.Chaiidraka!a VVife ofPoonaiii Saliu 13.Nirmala Bai Wife ofGhanshvam Sahu 14. Budliaravvaraia Son ofBaisaldiu Nishad 15. Prem Shankar Son ofGuharam Sahu 16. Tilafcram Son ofjantram Nishad 17.Narottam Son of'Suklai Nishad 18. Maniram Son of Devada Satnami The respondent No. 3 to 14 are resident ofviUa.ae Bhawaiiipur and respondent No. 15 to 17 are resident of viilage JuEwani, Village Panchavat Shawaaipur, Tahsil Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) 19.State of Chhattisearh. ITirou.sh: The Secretary, Dcpaftinent. of Paiichayat aiid Social Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) WRn'PmiT10N_UNDER._ARTICLE.226I)F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SM: Hon'ble Shri Satislt K. Asmliotri, J. Present: Shri P.P.Sahu. Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri Arv-iiid Dubey, Panel Lawyer for tlie State/respondent No. l to 3 aiidl9. 1. ,th /PBlga/.) ntl '2r>UI fflT nf n"tnhsr ')nf}T\ A d.>3i2li^t^ ^ii ^u iu^'i'J '<-r-i- <-^ufcVa-'r^'l; A*iyu / ^ The affidavit ot' serviee and the copies of acknowledeement filed by the petitioner on 29.10.2007 are taken on record. Leamed counsel appearing tbr the petitioner submits that the Additional Collector. Baloda Bazar. Disti-ict Raipw, while considerins the reference under section 21(4} of the Chhattisgarh Panchavat Raj Avam Gram R~ .--A- ^ Ki.' M^- •^- 5. 6. 7^- Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, dismissed the reference on the ground ofthree davs dslav. Tlie Additional Coilector has dismissed tlie reference on merit also without cailine fbr records and without considerine the facts ofthe case. Leamed counsel farther submits that according to the petitioner, there was no delav as the time consumed for obtainme the certified copy of the resolution was not taken into consideration while computine the period of iimitation i.e. 7 davs. Notice was issued to the respondents on 17.10.2007. Tlie petitioner has filed an affidavit ofserviee. indicatmg that the resoondent No. 13. 16. and 17 .have accepted Hamdast notice. Tha remaining respondents i.e. respondent No. 4 to 12. 14. 15 and 18 have deciined to accept the notice on the ground that the notice was not served through the process server. In view ofthe fact that some ofthe respondents have declined to accept the notice, it is deemed to have been served upon the resoondents. The respondent No. 13. 16 and 17, despite service of notice have failed to aopear or make anv representation before this Court. After having heard leamed counsel for the parties, it appears that the Additional Collector. Baloda Bazar, has not applied his mind wliile computine the period of limitation. Even othenvise. the Additional Coilector oueht to have siven one opportunitv to the petitioner to file appropriate application/afl'idavit explaining the delay, if there was any delav. The decision of the Additional Collector on merit is not atter examining the documents and considerine the facts relevant for the pufpose ofdecision. In view ofthe foreeoing. the UTipUEmed order dated 25.09.2007 ('Annexure P/9) is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Additional Collector, Baloda Bazar tbr consideration of the reference after notice to all the concemed and oass aDproDriate order. in accordance with law. Accordinelv. this petition is allowed. Sd/- SarishK.Agnihotri Judge umt ,1 ?<.,