^' . ."'> HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.ffi) No. 2277 of 2007 Petitioner Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. Narayan Lal, S/o Punuram Devdas, Aged about - M years, R/o - Village Gu!!u, Tahsil, Arang, Dsstt. - Raipur (C.G.) ~ Ramkumar S/o Sirbhu Kotwar, Aged about - 40 years, R/o - Vitlage Gullu, Tahsi! Arang, Distt. - Ra'ipur (C.G.). State of ChhatUsgarh, Through Revenue Secretery, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Circuit Court, Raipur. SB: Hon'bto Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Shri C. R. Sahu, Advocate for th©peWoner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Pane! La'Ayer for the respondent No.2. ORDER (Passed on this 12"' day ofAprii, 2007) 1. This psStion under Articte 226/227 of the Consfctutfon of India. seeks a writ'direction te pass appropriate order directing the respondsnte to consider the cass of ths petetioner fcr appoinfenent as K^'A'sr in village GuKu. 2. The authorifes below have considered the fact that the respondent No.1 ivas appointsd as Kotwar of viliage Gutiu by TahsiMar vide order dated 8.6.2000 on reguter basis. The order was passed after hearing both fche psrties. The petJSoner did not raise any objecfen immediately, but after a period of 3% years the petitioner fiied an appeal. before the Sub Divisiona! Officer, Raipur on 31.3.2004, The Sub DMsiona! 0?Rcer havmg bssn safisfied with the explanation for deiay. altewed the appeai vide ordsr dated 9.3.2005. 3. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the respondent No.1 preferred an appeat before the Additional Collsctor, the Additiona! Collector after having examined the reasons for deiay came to the conciusion that the I- appeai filed before the Sub Divisiona! Officer wss not maintainabte. Thus, wde order dsted 5.10.2005, passed in Case No. 3S/A-56/2004- 2005, aiiowed the appeal anef set asids the order datsd 8.3.2005 passed by the Sub Divisiona! OfRcer. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a revision against the order dated 5.10.2005 passed by the Additional Colisctor. The Board Revenue in its order dated 15.12.2008, passed in ^>pea! No. 28/A- 56/2<X)5-2(X)6, aftsr having considered a!l the fecte came to the conclusion that the petifioner did not prefer any appea! in Sme, as the petitioner haci gone Nagpur for employment. Th's cannot be a safefactory ground for condonation of delay, as by the time the appeal bsfore the Sub Divisional Officer was fited, the respondent No.1 has settied himself as Kotwar. Thus, the Board of Revsnue vide te ordsr dated 15.12.200S (Annexurs P/1) confirmed ths order datsd 5.10.2005 passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur and rejected ths rsvision. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for Sie petitioner as we!i as iearned counse! appearing for the State/Respondsnt snd perused ths pteadmg, and thejudgment and order passed by the Board of Revenue. The pefift'oner has not filed ths orders passed by other authorities betew. 6. !t is we!l settted principte of law that this Court white exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constihition of India has limited jurisdiction to the extent of reviewing the case, in the event, there is pewersity, irregularity or illegality in ths process of decisjon, not in the decision itself. On carefu! perusal of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, it appears that there is no infirmity or iltegality in the order impugned herein. 7. in <risw of the foregoing, ttie petjtion is dismissed, summarily. S<U- Sausfe^- 3udS(