IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURYC.G.t WRIT PETITION fC1 N0. ^Ci ^ / QF 2007 PETITIONER : ^^ Dubraj Son of Shri Baiga, aged ^.-^••'""..about 57 years, Caste Rajwar, o^O^C/ Residentof Village Madhar, Tahsil '3<'"A'oV Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) ^'y^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^l. Udai Ram Son of Late Shri Man Sai, aged about 3^ years; -'s'^'a °?;'¥&?%,. /^- y. ^^^ i'A'£rf<_3&*1 ' l^fS^:!s?AW.I ^sf^j/k- ^5~ 'ihs'n~-Si'5%J^ "*i.. titS!a'~n3?i6ik ^f '"%SV By^" v!»S!lassssi r.-i ^'.J^ Dube Ram Son of Late Shri Man Sai, aged about 30 years; Telaso Widow of Late Shri Man Sai, aged about 65 years; All residents of Village Madhar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.). Board of Revenue, Through: The Chairman, Board of Revenue, at Bilaspur (C.G.). - \ WRIT PETITIQ1\LUNDER_ARTLCLE 227_OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA >?''/ ^.-C'1>y/ ^'^y /'-^ ^^*y^ ^/^oy' HB ^'..- ^Sitfc^^' M^° .;' r", ±--f HIGH C»URTOF CHHATTISGARH s BILASPUR SIHGLE; BENCH ; HGN*BLB SHRI MASINDRA MOH&5S SHRIVASTAVA.J. PETITiQKRp RESPONDBHT8 Writ Petitiotx (Ci No. 2081/2007 Dubraj VCTSUS Udai Ram aud 4 others WSiT PBTITION UXBER ARTICI.E 227 OF THB CGHSTITUTIGN OF INDIA Anoearaace; ShriA.K.Shtuda, couusel for ttie petitioner. Shri A.N.Paadey, coiiasel for Respondeat No. 1 to 3. Shri S.K.Agiawal, Paael Lawyer for fbe STate/Respondent No.4. ORAL ORDER (Passcd on 8th April 2010) By this petition tinder Article 227 of the Constitution of Jndia, the petitioner has assailed legality aud vaiidlty of ojpder dated 01/12/2006 (Annexure P-5) by which petitiouer's appUcation for coiidonatioii of delay ui fljing revisiou has been iTejected. 2. Learued coiiusel for the petitioner submitted that piaceedlugs under Section 170-B were initiated against the petitiouer by fhe Sub-DivlsiDiial Ofilcer who, by order dated 19/01/2001 closed the case hoUltig ffaat fhe provisions of Section 170-B are not attracted. Agakist that order, ^ respondents No. 1 to 3 filed an appeal before the CoUector, who vide its order '^ ' ^ dated 9/5/05, aUowed the same and set aside'lthe order ofthe Sub Divisional Offlcer and duiected return of laud in djspute adineasurlug 0.80 acre to the respondents No.l to 3. Aggrleved by ttie saiu order, petitiojier preferred revision before the Board of Revenue. Along wlth the revisioa, petitioner subuutted an application for coiulonation of delay lu ftUng revisioa. It was -i <yi!^?"'^T%. ^ ^ ^ '^ 8 ^.B 1 i h^ s '<ia. -^&s^ss^- - ^ - subjiutted that tue petitioner had eu^aged the counsel to represeat hls case in fhe appeal at Ainbikapur aud he residcs at a place wliich is approxunately 100 Kins. away fi'om. Ambikapuf. Oa the date of passing of order dated 9/05/05 by flie CoUector, he was not present Thc petitioner was aot coBimuuicated with the result of his case. Whea he met Iiis couusel at Ambikapur on 27/01/2006, he was iuforiued tbat the appeal uas been allowed and order agaiast him has been passed. It was thereafter that wifhln 90 days of flie date of knowledge, the appeal was ffled before the Board ofRevenue on 18/04/2006. It was stated fhat the petitiouer is a poor viUager aud is a resideut ofdistaut forest area of Sur^uja. 3. Submisslon of fhe'learned couusel for fhe petitionef is fiiat the Board of Revenue has not considered fhe grouads raised ia fhe application aad has rejected fhe applicatiou by adopting a hypei'technioal appi-oach wfaich has resulted in uuscari-lage of justice. 4. On the other hand, subinission oflearued counsel for tae i-espondents 1s fhat fhe Board of Revenue has not coiiumtted jurisdictional error or pervei'sily in rejectiiig petitioner's applicatiou for condouation of delay as flie revlslon was filed after 11 jnonfhs whereas limltation te prescribed as 90 days aud thus revision was delayed by 8 mouths. It is also subtaitted that the fiuding of the Board of Rev&nue fhat no evidence has beeu p.roduced aud each day's delay has not been explain.ed constltutes sufficient reasons to f^ reject the appUcatfou for con.douation ofdelsy. ^ 5. Having consideiTed the submission ofthe c-ou.usel for the rival parties, I am incliued to atlow ttus petitioa. lu fhe application, petitioner bas clearly stated that he resides ia a distant forest area whereas his appeal was pending before the Collector at Ambikapur which is approximately 100 km.s. -8"^ '%. ?^,. -3- away fnom his place ofresidence. It has been stated ia the applicatiou fuat fhe petitioner was not preseat iu fhe Couit on 09/05/05 aad fherefore, he did uot kuow about fhe order. It has been stated ia the application fhat he came to kaow about the order only on 27/01/200u when he eontaeted hls counsel at Amblkapur on 27/01/2006. AU these subuussions were uot disputed by ftie respondents by filing any specific reply. Thc Boapd of Revenue has adopted unduly restricted and narrc>w view by .retjuidug the petitioner to explain each day's de]ay. . Rejection of the applicatioa oa the ground fhat uo evidence was led te also erroneous. 'TIie stafras of the petitioner as a resident of distant vlUage and fbat fhe caae was pendlug at Ambikapur was also uot takeu iato coasidei'ation ia arriviug at tlie fludiug that the delay uot bonafide. 6. In view of the aforesaid coasideration fbe impugaed order dated 1/12/2006 (Annexure A-5) is set aside. The application for c-ondonation of delay is altowed. The case of the petitioner shaU now be coasldered on its own merits by the Board ofRevenue. Petition is ftoaUy disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge /'-^