q •V.>! ^o^^v"' 3--rs^'(^ ^p-'^" ^^ yy°^•-" •r^'^~^--rv\'w^ivw-\'^-^-'\i-^^^-..:.^''- INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlSGAKHAT BILASPUR W.P. (227)N0. $S2&_/ 2010 S.B. &JN6U PETITIONERS (APPLICANTNO.l) (APPLICANTN0.21 (APPLICANTN0.3) (APPLICANT N0.4) 4. ^ei^hsStf «!) ^""G^ij ^'«;'< ^^' / ^ (APPLICANT N0.5) Yogram S/o Dayaram Sahu, Aged about 42 yeais, Up- Sarpanch, Gram Panehatyat Mujgahan, Tahail- Dondilohara, Disrt.-Durg (C.G;). : Prakash Kumar S/o Johan Das Hirwani, Aged aliput 42 years, - Panch, Gram Panchatyat Mujgahan, Tahsil- Dondilohara, Disrt.-Durg (C.G.). Nohar Lal S/o Dharamu Sahu, Aged about 35 years, Panch, Gram Panchatyat Mujgahan, Tahsil- Dondilohara, DisiA.-Durs (C.G.). Khemlal S/o i Jagdev Bhuaarya, Aged about 40 years, Matsya Krishak Samuh (Fishery Lease Holder), Village Mujgahan, Tahsil- Dondilohara, Disit.-Dur^ (C.G.). Khublal S/o Mankodi Thaktir, Aged about 40 years.iMatsya Krishak Samuh (Fishery Lease Holder),, Village Mujgahan, Tahs.il- Dondilohara, ' Distt.- DurgfC.G.). . IIKI ^- (APPLICANT N0.6) 1APPLICANTN0.7) (APPLICANT N0.8) 1APPLICANTN0.9) (APPLICANT I @ j S.R.^^jKj ^ (APPLXCANT N0.12) 6. ~ Lalit Kumar Hirwaiii S/o Bhushan Das, Aged al3out 37 ^ years, Gram Patel, Village- Mujgahan, Tahsil- Dondilohara, - - Disi±.-Durg (C.G.). 7. Madan Lal S/o Jhadu Ram Sinha, Aged about 52 years, Villager of Village Mujgahan, Tahsil- Dondilohara, Distt.- Durg(C.G.). 8. Hajjuram. S/o Bhanvar Singh Halba, Aged about 42 years, Villager of Village Mujgahan, Tahsil- Dondilohara,: Distt.- Durg(C.G-). 9. Nohar Das S/o Mahettar Lal Haluva, Aged about 4f) years, Villager of Village Mujgahan, Tahsil- Dondilohara, Distt.- Durg (C.G.). 10 Nemehand S/o Rai/Singh Sahu, Aged about 50 years, Villager of Village Myjgahan, Tahsil- Dondilohara, Distt.- Durg(C.G.). l.1 Mulchand S/o Uday Ram ' Haluva, Aged about 54 years, Villager of Village Mujgahan, Tahsil- Dondilohara, Distt.- Durg (C.G.); 12. Heindas ' S/o Mohaii Das Hirwani, Aged about 50 years, Villager of Vills-ge M'ujgahan,, Tahsil- Dondilohara, Distt.- (APPLICANT N0.13) (APPLICANT N0.14) (APPLICANT N0.15) (APPLICANT N0.15) (APPLICANT N0.17) Durg (C.G.). 13. Jagdish Ram S/o Salik Ram., Aged about 85 years, Villager of Village Mujgahan, Tahsil- Dondilohara, -- Distt.-Durg (C.G.). 14 Johan Das S/o Kanhai^yya Lal, Aged about 65 years, Villager of Village .Mujgahan, Tahsil- Dondiloh^ra, ;Disl;t.-Durg (C.G.). 15 Churaraan Das S/o Udhodas, Aged about 40 years, Villager of Village Mujgahan, Tahsil- Dondilohara, Distt.-Durg (C.G.). , 16. Ubhay Das S/o Shyamlal Hirwani, Aged about 65 years, Villager of Village Mujgahan, Tahsil- Dondilohara, Distt.- DurgfC.G.). 17. Karaendra Hinvani S/o Bhavdas, Aged about 47 years, Villager of Village Mujgahan, Tahsil- Dondilohara, Distf.-Durg (C.G.). RESPONDENTS VERSUS : ^ The Board of Kevenue, Chhattisgarh, Eiilaspur / (Circuit Court-Raipur) (C.G.). 2. The Cominissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.). The Collector, Durg, Distt.- Dyrg (C.G.). ; ^fS^^f!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!3'''.''^:"'.""'!. •B (NON-APPLICANT N0.1) fNON-APPLICANT N0.2) 4.' The Sub Divisional Officer, Balod, Distt.-Durg (C.G.). 5. ' Lokdas S/o Mohandas R/o village- Mujgahan, Tahsil- Dondilohara, — Distt.-Durg (C.G.). 6,^/ State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Collector, Durg, Distt- Durg (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE227 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA :\^ HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227)N0. 5593 OF 2010 PETIT16NERS RESPONDENTS Yogram and others. Versus The Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Circuit Court, Raipur) and others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOFINDIA (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Rajesh Ranjan Sinha, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.2 to 4 & 6. Shri B.P. Sharma, counsel for respondent No.5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on24thday ofJanuary, 2011) Heard on admisslon. 2. The review order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 30-08-2010 in Revenue Review Case No. R.W./05/R/A- 1/15/2010 rejecting the review petition preferred by the petitioners is under assail in the instant petition. 3. The facts in brief areas under: Second appeal preferred by respondent No.5 beforethe Additional Commissioner bearing case No.163/A-23/99-2000 was dismissed as time barred on the ground that no application for condonation of delay has been fiied along with the appeal. The said order was assailed by respondent No.5 before the Board of Revenue in revision. The Board of Revenue allowed the revision filed by respondent No.5. There against, the review petition was filed by the petitioners which was dismissed vide impugned order. 4. Learned counset for both the parties submitted that the appeal preferred by respondent No.5 was dismissed by the Additio'hal Commissioner not on merits but on the ground that it "'Ste Kw is time barred. The Board of Revenue after hotding the appeal preferred before the Additional Commissioner as within time, instead of remanding back the matter to the Additional Commissioner for deciding the appeal on its own merits, allowed the revision also on merits which is not correct. 5. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, on the basis of submissions made by both the parties, 1 feel that the Board of Revenue has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the order on merits and the matter should have been remanded back to the Additional Commissioner for its decision on merits after treating the appeal as within time. 6. In view of the above, the order impugned is set aside ahd the matter is remitted back to the Additional Commissioner for its decision on merits as the delay has already been condoned by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 30-1 1 -2009. The petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application before the Additional Commissioner for adding him as party and if such application is filed, the same shall be decided on its own mertts without being influenced byany observation made bythisCourt or by the Board of revenue. 7. The petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge f;:.,i