IN THEHIGH COURT OF CMHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 ,:.:..;' ! ; .' • W.P. Z27 N0. /»(71 "<? /2008 PETITIONERS Ap^CAc-a-^fct <^ r~^-^ ^ f - S.-y. 's" 'is ',^r }Z^/ / y iU~.7 -••" ^. ,^ j^yo^y ffs.^'vy ^•fyy ^"^'. v ^^ / . ^ . f^ :1 Bhagav, aged about 44 yeas, S/o. Pilu Marar, 2. Bhakali Bai, aged about 36 years, D/o.Pilu Marar, 3. Sakhgram, aged about 41 years, S/o. Pilu Marar 4. Kanshram, aged about41 years, S/o. Pilu Marar, I 5. Smt. Sanmoti, aged about 51 years, . Wd/o. Pilu Marar, All Occupation-Agi-iculturist, R/o. Village Laxmipur, P.C. Np.31, R.I. Cicle Pithora, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDEMTS » : 1. State of Chhattisgarli, Through : The j' SeCretary, Oepartment of Revenue, D.K.S. BMawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Thje.j6oaFGt;of Revenue, Chhattisarh, s" GirCtiit Gourt Raipur (C.G.) 3. Ttre'Collector, Mahasamuffcl, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 4. Sub-Divisional OfTicer, Matiasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 5. Tahsildar, ;Mahasamund, Mahasamund'(C.G.) District 6. Dharmti,~S/o. Ramsai, agedtabout 45 Yeas, Gaste-Marar,^ Occupation- Agriculturist y— 7. Shivprasad, S/o. Ramsai, ag|ed about 42 years, Caste-Marar, OGeupation- Agriculturist i No.6 & 7 R/o. Village Ctthahdanpur, Tahsil Basria, DistnGt Mahas;aiijiij|ni (C.G.) :'4Vi 8. Chamra, aged about 60 years, S/o. Brijlal Marar, 9. Sirmoti, aged aboutSO years, W/o. Brijlal Marar 10. Dolo, aged^about 50 years, S/o. Brijlal Marar, 11. Chaitu, aged about 45 yeas, S/o. Brijlal Marar No.8 to 11 Occupation-Agriculturist, R/o. Village Laxmipur, P.C. N6.31, R.I.Circle Pithora, Tahsil and Distrjct Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2270F THE CONSTITUtION OFINDIA ^' ^ Sinale Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kusrar Mjshra Wr'rt Petition (227) No.4813 of 2i Bhagau and others State of Chhattisaarh and others. Shri Raghavendra Pradhan, counsel forthe petitioners. Shri Susheel Dubey, Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 5/State. ' Shri Sunii Sahu, counsel for respondents No. 6 & 7. (2) The respondents No. 6 & 7 have moved an appeal (Annemre- P/4) before Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mahasamund cn 12.01.2007 with a prayer to set aside the mutation Order dated 08.12.1985, along with the appeal an application under Section 5 ofthe limitation Act Tor condonation of delay in filing the appeai vi/as aiso moved, as thers was a delay of 22 years in filing the appeal. The reason assigned for condonation of delay is that they were not aware of the mutation proceedings. The leamed Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) issued notice on the appeal on 15.01.2007 and thereafter the matter was taken up on 24.02.2007. On the said date, the counsei for the present petitioners were present. The matter was again taken up on 26.03,2007 when the Sub Divisional Officer proceeded ex-parte jagainst the present petiUoners wrtio were re^ondents No. 5 to 9 jn ^he -9- V. appeal before the SDO, and after considering the application Sectfon 5 of the limftation Act, ^lay of 22 years in friing the been sondoned. This order waschaltenged in the appeal by the the Coltector, Mahasamund, wherein the Order dated'/28.05.2007 (Annxure-P/2). dismissed the petitioners' revision petition The Board v'ide impus (3) It is submitted by the leamed counsel for the ^titioners that ubsequently on an application under Sectson 35(3) of the Chhattisgarh has set aside the order o( Sl Land Code, ttie teamed S ex-parte against them ' >6.03. and orders application Tor condonation of delay was passed wrthout giving an opportunity of hearing to them. He subm'rts that the Collector as we) as the Board of Revenue have not appreciated the facts property and shoulci have allowed their appeal to give them opportunfty of hearing on the application under Section 5 of the Um'rtation Act, before ths (4) Leamed counsel for the respondents 6 and 7 submits that the pet'rtioners themselves failed to appear on the date of hearing and Ihe counsel had appeared subsequentty and moved an application for sening ast 24.^.2007 by which the ex-parte order has be< as such it is ctear that the SDO (Reyenue) has not 1 m tne orae •t aside; ans by order on lationofdelay. der it appears that on the subsequent date, lated 26.03.2007 wherein the petitioners "^ ^-Si^ Bsra ^~ s. were proceeded ex-parte vrere set aside, the pet'rtioners ought to have opportunrty to fite reply and raise arguments on the question; of delay because the delay in the presert case in filin< the appeal was of 22 years. (6) Since the Collector Mahasamund as well as Board of Revenu< have not considered the l^al impact oithe order passed by the SDO, subsequently, on 24,05.2007 whereby ex-parte was set asi committed by the rs, there appears to be error of jurisdiction as the Board of Revenue in exereise of their appellate and revisional power. Sinee the application Tor condonation of delay has been allowed without hearing the petitioners, this Court is of view that the Order dated 23.05.200S passed by the Board of Revenue deserves to be and 's hereby set aside. The parties shall appear before the SDO (Reyenue} Mahasamund and the petitioners shall file their reply to the application Tor condonation of delay and the applicatton shall be decided afresh after hearing the parties. It is made ctear that this Court has not expressed any opinion in the mer'rts of the case or on the merits of the condonatton of delay applfeation. (7) No order as to costs. Sd/- prashantKumar Judge Mishra -iiti;