..^'^^^ -. c^ ^aSSS-ss^s^ ^' s ^v 7^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTIS©ARHAT BiLASPUR Writ Petition No.3005 of 2006 Petitioner Non-applicant No.1 Respondsnts State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Janjgir-Chanrtps (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. Laldas, 72 years Guru Mahant Ram- Charandas, Caste:Bratmian, R/o : Gram Champa, Tahsil: Champa, Ofstt.:Janjglr-Champa(Chhattisgarh). (Revisionist) 2. Rudreshwar Sharan, aged about 70 years, S/o Chitrabhan Singh, (Former Land Lord) R/o: Gram Champa^ Tahsil: Champa, Distt.:Janjgir-Champa (Chhattlsgarh) Non-applicant No.2 (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Mr.Sushil Dubey, Govt.Advocatefortto petitioner/State. MrAshok Verma, counset for respondents. 1. I (SB: Hon'bte Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER (ORALt (12-8-2011) .A.No.03 for taking document on record is allowed. Doeument is taksn on record. By this writ p^ition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of tndia the petitioner/State has chailenged the tegallty & propriety of the order dated 21.11.2003 (Annexure P/14) passed by the Board of Revenue, BBaspur in Revision Case No.207/A-90(B)/aX)2-^X)3, whereby the Board of Revenue has reversed the order dated 11.2.20C0 (Annexure P/13) psssed by the Additional Commissioner, Janjgir-Champa in Ceiiing Case No.1/A-90(B)/2002-2003. As per copy of the orders, proceeding under the provisione of the Chhattisgarh Ceiting on Agricuiturat Hoidlngs Act, 1960 (Tor short 'the Act, 1960") was initiated against respondent No.2 Rudeshvar Sharan Singh and his wife Smt.Beenadevi before the Additional Cotiector competent authorlty in case of iand situated in two different tahsii of -: ss%^ Si ^ ^ ^y^^S"'^- ^ '•.ite^",.^ 4. 5. )V^ same district in terms of Section 2 (e) (ii) of the Aet, 1980 prfor to 1989. Final order was {Missed. Thereafter, objector Laldas prefsrred appsai against the order dated 19.5.89 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Additionai Collector, Korba before the Additiona! Commissioner, Bitaspur Dmsion, Bilaspur and vide order dated 24.8.2002 passed in Appaai Case N@. 338/A-90/2001-2002 the Acklitiqnal Commissioner, Bii^pur Division, Bilaspur has rejected ciaim of Latdas on the ground that property was transferred to him before enforcement of the Act. He has p-eferrsd revision before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior in Revision Csse No.2531-3/^KK! and wde order dated 30.10.2002 (Annexure P/12) tlw Board of Revenue, Gwalior has reversed the order passed by the Addltional Collector, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspurand renranded tte case for fresh reconsideration. After remand of the case, the Additienal Collector, Janjgir-champa passed ths order dated 11.2.^303 (Annexure P/13) in Ceiling Case No.1/A-90(B)/2002-2003 and again dismissed the claim of Laidas. Same was challenged before the Board ef Revenue, Biiaspur and vide order dated 25.7.2003 the Board of Revenue has converted the appeal into revision on the ground that State Government has not decided about competent authority for hearing the appeai, therefore, same is converi:ed into revision under the prowslons of Section 42 of the Act, 1960. Finaily vide order dated 21.11.2003 the Board of Revenue, Biiapsur has quashed the order passed by the Additionai Commissionter, Janjgir-Champa in Ceiling Gase No.1/A- 90(B)/2002-2003, which was under chalienge before this Gourt. 1 have heard leamed counsei Tor the parties, perused the order impugned and other documents ffled on behatf ofthe parties. Leamed counsel for the petitioner/'State submits that while passing the order impugned the Board of Revenue has not considered tha order passed by the Additional Commisstoner and has quashed the order without appreciating the material eviderrce and thereby committed illegality. On the other hand, teamed counsel for respondente opposes the petition and submits that firetly the writ petition is hopelessly barred by limttation and no relief can be granted to the petltioner on the basis of petition fried after lapse of more than three yeare and wfthout applitation for ^.':^1:' 3 condonation of delay, petition 1s not maintainable. Learned counset further submits that after passingof order of Board of Revenue third party interest has been created and respondents have sold some land to other pereons. Leamed oounsel contended that only on the ground that some wrong provision has been quoted the Court havlng ^irisdlction does not cease its jurisdfctton. 7. Leamed counsel placed rellance In the matttr of Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lri Agrawal and Ors.'1 in whteh the Supreme Cmirt ha« hekl that on the ground that Development Authority has incurred huge expenditure but also created third party rights and writ petltion fited by landowner after delay of 9 years from dateof declaration and six years Trom date of passing of land acquisition award, petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel further placed retiance in the matter ofKamla Devi Budhia (Smt.) v. Han Prabha Ganguli2 !n which the Supreme Court has held that jurisdiction vested In same Court and suit filed quoting wrong provision shouU be treated under correct provlslon. Leamed counsel atso placed reliance in the matter of State ot U.P. v. Phota and etc.3 in which the High Court of Allahabad has held that flret appeal flled on behalf of the State after lapse of 283 days and no plausible explanation has been offered, therefore, flret appeal was not malntainable and barred by limitation. Leamed counsel relied upon the matter of R.C.Chaudhry v. M/s. Prestige Finance and Chit Fund Co.Pvt.Ltd.,4 In which the High Court of Delhi has hekl that clyil revision filed after the period of limltatlon and no applfeation for condonatipn of delay has been filed, then revision is not maintainabte as time barred. Learned counsel also relied upon the matter of Dr.Rajendra Dubey v. State of M.P. & others®in which writ petttion for quashing the allotment order of land flled after a period of four years from the date of atlotment that is after a lapse of considerable period and no explanatlon of detay given, this Court Is not inclined to issue writ. Leamed counsel ptaced reliance in the matter of Stateof C.G. & Others v. Shakuntata Jaln & 12011A»RSCW2835 2M.P.W.N.1^ (II) (SC) 3AIR1991Allahabad229 4AIR1996Delhi382 52002(1)C.G.L.J.ire ^- j2^\ others6 In whteh this Court has heM that Misc. Appeal flted after a period of 441 days without any cogent reason is not malntainable as time barred. Leamed counsel further placed reliance in the matter ofState of M.P. v. Bapulal & others7 in which High Court of Madhya Pradesh has hekl that in case of Ceiting on Agricultural Hoklings Act, 1960 before amendmerrt in Section 4, competent authortty was not empowered to enquire into the matter retating to sale deed executed prior to pjblicatlon of Bill. 8. Admittedly as per documents, order dated 11.2.2003 passed by the Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa tn Ceiling Case No.2/A-90(B)/2002- 2003 was appealable under Section 41 (1) in terms of Section 2 (e) (ii) of the Act, 1960 and as per second proviso of Section 42, revision against such appealable orderwas not malntainable. 9. In the present case, there was no ambigulty retating to competeroy of appellate authority. Even olherwlse, by reasoned order appellate authority was not competent to convert the appeal into reviston on the ground that although the appeal is malntalnable, but In absence of decision relating to appellate authority it cannot be converted into revision which the Board of Revenue has passed vkle order dated 25.7.20)3. • 10. The present vwtt petition has been filed after lapse of about three yeare i.e. after considerable detay, but there is no limitation In fllir^ wrtt petition, therefore, facts of the cases of Phota and ete. and R.C.Chaudhry (supra) are distinguishable to that of the present case. 11. As held by this Court in the matter of Dr.Rajendra Dutowf (Supra), in case of considerable delay of four years, this Court has dTClined to issue writ. 12. As heM by the Supreme Court in the matter of K.unla Devi Budhia (Snrrt.) (supra), quotation of wong provision ts ncrt falal to the party or forum to exercise the jurisdlction, but in the present case, the Board of Revenue knowing well the fact that order was appeatable and there was no amb^utty relating to appellate authority converted the appeal into B20)7(3)C.G.LJ.522 719^RN411(hfighCourt) -^- !\. revision, for which Board of Revenue was not competent. Sectlon 41 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 was suttably amended vlde Act No.11 of 2003 which came into Torce from 23.11.^02. tn case of any amblgulty relating to appetlate authority the Board of Revenue would have dlsmissed the appeal on the ground of comp^eney, byt it was not comp^ent to convert theappeal into revi^on on the aforesaia ground;» 13. By converting the aweal into revision, the Board of Revenue has committed serious illegaltty and by passing such order the Board of Revenue has committed illegatity warrantlng interference in exeroise of supervisory jurlsdtotion, even after tapse of considerable tlmei -» 14. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Otderdated 21.11.2003 (Annexure P/14) fassed by the Board of Revenue in Revision Case No.207/A-90(B)Q002-2003 is hereby quashed. Case te remitted to the Court of Board of Revenue, Bilaspur. The Board of Revenue shall hear the parties in the light oTaforesakl tegal provtsions and observartion and pass the order afresh. The Board of Revenue may trgnsfer thecase to the authority competent to hear the appeal. Parties are directed to remain present before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur on 21.8.2011 ftw further proceedings of the case. No order as to costs. 15. Interim applications stend disposed of. Sdf- T.P. Sharma Judge