mgu'i: S o ’ ‘ 2-1-2008 Shri Prafull Bharat, couns/ l fOr the petitioners. Shri N.K. Agrawhl, Dy. Ad ocate General takes notice on behalf of respondent N0.2/State. Heard. _By this writ petition und r Article 227 of the Constitution of ' 'India the petitioners have quest oned the legality and correctness of seci w the Board of Revenue, the order dated 26-10-2007 {Writ Petition under Article 7 o the Constitution of India} in e Bench: Hon’bl Mm Jusace LC: Bhndo 2 f s PETITIONERS/ 1. Mohan Prasad Panigrahi, S/o La‘te APPELLANTS V Ganpati Prasad Panigrahi, aged about 75 years. ‘ 2. ’Smt. Reakha Devi, W/o Shri .Mohan Pmsad Panigrahi, aged about 69 years. ‘ Both R/o Kui'nharpara, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG). RESPONDENTS - 1.’ k<ersus - The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, State of Chhattisgarh cum Board of Revenue, C.G. Circuit Court, Jagdalpur, Distt.- Bastar(CG). 2. The Collector of Stamps, Collector, Bastar, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar' (CG). WW,W,W @ m m wwgmfqaai 200 mam (W) mam W WWW mm‘if‘wm ‘ am‘mméa Chhattisgarh, whereby the Bo petitioners herein questioning dated 19-6-2006 passed by the Learned counsel for the has rejected the appeal filed by the lity and correctness of the order ector, Stamps, Jagdaipur. itioners argued that the delay in filing the appeal was already co doned by the Member 0f Revenue Board vide order dated 28—2 2007, appeal was admitted for consideration and matter was fix d for final argument on 27~4-2007. Vide impugned. order dated 26- 2007 learned Board has rejected '\ the appeal on the ground of deia l have heard learned couns l for the parties. \ Having heard learned cou eel for the parties, l have perused the impugned order. Perusal of t e order dated 28-2-2007 passed bye the Revenue Board reveals that y the said order delay in filing the appeal'was already condoned nd appeal was admitted for final“ order dated 26—10-200? learned on merit, dismissed the appeal hearing, whereas by the impug Board instead of deciding the a on the ground of delay, therefore, he said order is perverse. Once the appeal was admitted, learned Revenue Board was having no jurisdiction to re-open the questi n and to dismiss the appeal on the ground of delay. Therefore, this o er is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ peti,'on is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The Revenu Board is directed to restore the mattertoits originalnumber and ecide the appealonits ovyn merits.’ Sd/- ' L.C. Bhadoo Judge mama a l 1 ’ x l n p a h t