HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR‘ i Writ Petition No.55os of 2boo Q?) Champabai wife of Narmada Prasad Rajak, aged abeut 4O years Resident of Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur (MP) (now CG)‘ ‘ Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur (MP) (now CG) 2. Additionai Collector, Bilaspur (MP) (now CG) 3. Sub Divisional Officer Bilaspur (MP) (now CG) 4. State of Madhya Pradesh through the Secretary, Revenue Departmeht Valiabh Bhawan, Bhopai (MP) 5. Smt. Phuleshwari Bai D/o Umaji Gond Shatruhan son of Chandrika Gond Sanjay son of Chandrika Gond Nos.5 to 7 ail by caste Gond, Residents of Village Tifara Tahsil & Distt’ Bilaspur (MP) (now CG) {Writpetition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of lndia} PETITIONER: Present: Mr. Malay Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 to Mr. Janak Ram Verma, counsel for respondent No.5. Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Shanna, J ,3; ORAL ORDER (19-7—2010) 1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orderdated 22-10«97 (Annexure P44) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bjlaspur in Revenue Case No.300/A«23/95—96; order dated 27-1 -2000 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur in Case No.3lA-23/98-99; and order dated 25—5-2000 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in Case No. 1 02/A-23/99-2000. 2, By order ,dated 27-1-2000 the Additional Collector, Bilaspur has dismissed the petition for condonation of delay in tiling the appeal on the . 6W ground that notice has been received by the attorney holder of the e petitioner and same has been affirmed byythe order dated 25-5-2000 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Biiaspur. Both the orders reveal that no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur while passing the order dated 22-1 0-97 which was challenged in appeal before the Additional Collector. Both the revenue authorities were under obligation to provide opportunity ofhearing to the parties before passing the order, but for the reasons best known to the authoritiesconcerned, notice has been served upon the attorney holder of the petitioner instead of sending and sewing noticeupon the petitioner. Such order and dismissal of appeal & petition filed on behalf of the petitioner is not sustainable under the law. i: 3. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Order dated, 22-10-97 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur in Revenue Case No.300/A-23/95-96; order dated 27-1-2000 (Annexure P- 6) passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur in Case No.3lA-23/98-99; and order dated 25-52000 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in Case No.102/A—23l99—2000 are hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur for providing opportunity of hearing to the parties and deciding the case afresh. Parties are directed to present themselves before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur on 20-8-2010 for further proceeding of the case. 4. As pointed out by counsel for the parties, the case is pending‘since last fourteen years before the revenue Court. The Revenue Court is directed _ to decide the case as early as possible preferably within six months from today. .l—— ll , Sd/m Vi TLI’. Shanna s, Judge ‘