^ HSGH GOURT OF CHHATTSSGARH. BSLASPUR Potjtioner (Non-appiJcant No.5) Respondente Appiicante and non- aooiicants No.1 to 4 & 6 /A/- 2. 3. 4. 5. Tulsi Ram, S/o Ambaial, R/o Vlllage Juna BJIaspur, Tehsil and District Bitaspur (Chhattisgarh) Versus Late Shivshankar Verma, S/o Sakiu Verma, RfQ VHiage Juna BJIaspur.Tehsii and District Biiaspur (Chhattisgarh) (since deceased) through LRS; (a) Sur©sh Verma, S/o Late Shivshankar Verma, R/o RacShika Vihar, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur (b) Dinesh Verma, Shivshankar Verma S/o Late (c) Anil Verma, S/o Late Shivshankar Verma {(b) & (c) R/o In front of Manohar Talkies, Juna Bilaspur. P.S: City Kotwaii, Distt.BJiaspur (d) Sunil Verma, Shivshankar Verma (e) Sushi! Vorma, Shivshankar Verma S/o Late S/o Lats (d) & (e) R/o Shanti Kunj, Ksrbaia, Bstaspur, P.S. Clty Kotwali, .Distt..Biiaspur (O Smt. Mamta Kashyap, D/o Late Shivshankar Verma, W/o Jagmohan Kashyap, Ryo Tuisi Awas 1/9, Rajkishore Nagar, Biiaspur (g) Kavita Kushwaha, D/o Late Shivshankar Verma, W/o Rakesh Kushwaha, R/o Unnav, Distt.Unnav (U.P.) (h) Yogita Kashyap, D/o Lat© Shh/shankar Verma, W/o Hari Kashyap, R/o Near Kall Mandir, Tifra, BiSaspur Dharam S/o Ghuruva Sahu KaiSash S/o Ghumwa Sahu Deva, S/o Ghuruwa Sahu Suraj Prasad, S/o Kanhaiya Pathak (S!.No.2 to 5 R/o Viliage Juna BiSaspur, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) \t-^ ^^^^^" 6. State of Chhattisgarh, through tho Cotlector, Bilaspur. ^Vrit Potition under ArticSe 227 of the Conststution of Sndia) Present: Mr. Sanjay Shyam Agrawal, counsei for ttie petitioner. Mr.Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, counsel for respondents No.1 (a), 1(c) to (h). Mr.S'iddarth Rathore. counsei for respondent No.1 (b). None present for rospondonts No.2 to 5. Mr.Sushil Dubey, Governmsnt Advocate for respondent No.6. Sinaie Bench: Hon'bie iVlr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (20-7-2010) 1. By this petstion, the petitionsr has chaiienged the iegaSity & propriety of th© ordsr datsd 22.1.2010 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Boardl of Revenue, Biiaspur in Review Case No. R.W./02/R-A-6/54/2009, whereby th©Board of Revenue has dismissed the petition for review of tho order dat©d30.42010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenus, Bilaspur in Rsvlsion Cas© NO.R.N./02/R.A.-6/224/2006, whereby revision fil©d on behaif of legal roprosentatjvos of deceased Shsvshankar Verma was aiiowed ©ndordor of mutation in favour of the present petstlonQr inctuding other persons wore roversed. 2. S have heard ioarned counse! for the parties and perused the petition, order impugned, order dated 30.4.2010 passed by the Board of Revsnue, Bitespur and written llied on behaif of the parties. 3. The short question involved in the present petition is as to whether the petitson for review filed on bshaif of the petitioner before the Board of Revenu®was time barred. 4. Order dated 22.1.2010 passect by the Board of Revenue clearly reveals that notics was not sepv'sd upon th©pstitioner; but was served by affixing the notice in tho house of tho potitioner. Copy of service report has been fiie^ on behaif of respondent No.1 (b) along wlth his written v/hich sho^vs that on the date of such ssrvice, the pstitioner v»'as not present in his house, therefor®,it was afRxsd in the conspicuous piace of hte house which ths petitioner has denisd, aithough service of notice by affixing ths same in the conspscuous piace of the house of the partlos aro permjssibie under the rutes irs case personaS service is not possibie. In these circumstances, serving officer was under obiigation to .^1•^,^ ::%. ,t. '' '% f? '^isi^- 1 N '"^""^•^i,A ^ .^" ^.- B/- make an attempt for personai servic®,but record rsveais that serving ofTicer has not attempted for personal ssrvice and oniy on account of his absence copy of notjco was affixed. Serving offscer has not inquirod about the absonco of the petitioner whether he was out of station or out of the house for some casual work. 5. This fact shov^s that sewing officor ha©not attempted for porsonaS sorvjce and has mechanicaily affixed th©Rotice sn the conspicuous piace of the petitioner. The petitioner has specificaliy deni©dttie ser^ice by afTixing ttis notise and has c!aimed that when he came to know about the order passed against htm, then he appiled for reviewtho petltion, but review petition has beon dssmissod soleSy on the ground of Jimitation. 6. Providing rsasonabie opportunity of hearing to the parties is sine qua non for Courts inciuding the Board of Revenue Courts for dispensing justice. !n the presont case, no opportunity has been given to the petitioner before passing the order dated 30.4.2009. 7. Consequentiy, the order dated 22.1.2010 is not sustainable under th©iaw. The petition is sllowed. Order dated 22.1.2010 passed by the Board of Revenu®, BiSapur, in Review Case No. R.W./02/R-A-6/54/2009 is set aslde. The Board of Revenue, Bilapsur aftsr providing opportunity of hearing to the parties by issuanco of notico and propor sorvice shalS docide the petitjon fsSed on behalf of the petitioner for rovJew of tho order dated 30.4,2009 afresh. The partios aro directsd to remain present befor®the Board of Rsvenue, Biiaspur on 26.8.2010 for further proceedings of the case. No order as to costs. Sdf- -j-p. sharma judge ,_.^t