IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT APPEAL No. 33 /2010 ‘ APPELLANT/ PETITIONER / Ku Reet Dey d/o Asit Baran Dey I aged abopt 27 years r/o Annapurna 4 Vihar Ganesh Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil ~ and Distri¢t Bilaspur Chhattisgarh VERSUS Mohd Rafeek s/o Mohd. Umar aged about 50 years Ganesh Nagar, Bilas‘pur, Tahsil 'and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh \ViHage Panchayat Mahmand— Through- The Sarpan‘ch ’Village Panchayat Mahmand, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 (1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT 2006 \ g. gt; /4. RESPONDENTS /1. State of Chhattisgarh through The Collector,’ District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ....... 0‘4, % /2. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), g¢>\ 6'. '1‘ i District Bilaspur, Bilaspur ?§:;g5e Chhattisgarh (APPLICANT) /3. lRajesh Yelukar s/o aged about 45 years r/o‘ Village Shankar Nagar, i Ton/va, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh thus wrrr appeal as the some has been preferred wlfh a deilay'o f 160 days . Explanahon has been submrHed +0 1'he effec'l' fha'r a wrn appeal was filed against the impugned order dafed 15 7 2009 however fhe some has been wnhdrawn wrrh hberfy 10 file a revuew pe'nhon and thereaffer a revnew pe‘rmon was flled before fhe learned Smgle Judge which was dlsmlssed vnde order da‘red 27.10.2009. .3. No explanation excepj "rheabove'has beenagiven. . The fact is 'rhaf this writ appeal has been filed on 05.02.2010. Review petition was decided on 27.10.2009. Certified copy of the order passed in review petition was applied for only onv 10 11 2009 which became ready on 11 11 2009 and therefor there is still unexplained delay of more than 90 clays L5. Besides above, learned counsel for’vthe writ appellantwhas himself submitted that the writ appellant's right has been " protected under Section 61 F(2) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat _ ‘ RaJ Adhmiyam 1993 and the appellant can avail the remedy by * Tc“ \f A ~. , HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP R. DIVI$ION BEN H I HON BLE SHRI M QUDDUSI Q ‘ HON'BLE 5Hk1 PRA HANT KUMAR MISH A WRIT APPEAL NO 33 OF 2010 Appallanf/Ptl'ifloncr Ku. Ree‘rn Dey Vs ‘ I ‘ a E 1 é_ Respondcnfs $1'a1'e of Chhnfrl'iwsgqrhj‘jfhers ‘ ‘ a: r Prascn‘rzé i Mr. A.V. $ridhnr, Advocufe for- Thenpp‘gllanf. L Mr. Arvinid Du‘beykPangIJLawygy for 1he S'ra‘fe. ‘ } { ORAL‘JuoeMENT ‘ A , I (Passed on 31" March,’ 201,0) x L ’L’ I M Quddusi J'— l§§ 1. Heard on I A No 1 apphcnhon for condonnfnon of delay m fmng ‘ *1, applyiné ,under fhaf secfion bgfor: fh¢1 Ergsgriubgd.‘Authggjjymf‘ogj x re-allofmen't of the” plot in quesfion. 6. In viewiof the chm, fhq.,,nppligati9n fa,Emdgmrignmgfwdgj‘gy"jn. ,, filing fhis‘ qppgql is rejected. 7. Conseque‘nxly, thgxnii. appeal ,i§.¢l.lso, dismissed. > ,Sd//- _ _ Pfashant KumarM_z , ‘ Judge ‘mb Sd/— wrigg f I.M.Quddusi 1 - J Judge' 1 my RA