Chattisgarh High Court
Shivram vs Hembati on 4 July, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP(227) No. 522 of 2023
1. Shivram S/o Late Liti Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Mundagaon,
Tahsil Bastar, District - Bastar (C.G.)
2. Rantu S/o Late Anantram Aged About 33 Years R/o Village -
Mundagaon, Tahsil Bastar, District - Bastar (C.G.)
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Hembati D/o Jagnnath Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Karandola
Bhanpuri, Tahsil And District Bastar (C.G.)
2. Bhagwati D/o Jagannath Aged About 37 Years R/o Village - Karandola
Bhanpuri, Tahsil And District Bastar (C.G.)
3. Munnalal S/o Jagannath Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Karandola
Bhanpuri, Tahsil And District Bastar (C.G.)
4. Smt. Dhanmati W/o Late Tiju Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Devda,
Tahsil And District Bastar (C.G.)
5. Kumari Sukhbati D/o Late Tiju Aged About 17 Years Through Legal
Guardian Mother Smt. Dhanmati, W/o Late Tiju, R/o Village Devda,
Tahsil And District Bastar (C.G.)
6. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Bastar (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For the Petitioners : Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate.
For Respondent/ State : Shri Chitendra Singh, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
ORDER
04.07.2023
1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (Circuit Court, Jagdalpur) dated 20.3.2023 in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N. 01/R/A-6/32/2019.
2. The facts of the present case are that an application under Section 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code was moved before the Tahsildar, Bastar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh by Smt. Hembati, Smt. Bhagwati and Ku. Savitri and same was allowed by Tehsildar vide order 2 dated 16.7.2012 wherein the order was passed to record the names of Smt. Hembati, Smt. Bhagwati and Ku. Savitri along with the petitioners. Thereafter, Smt. Hembati and Smt. Bhagwati filed an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Revenue on 20.7.2015 challenging the order of mutation dated 1.2.2001 alongwith an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Learned Sub-Divisional Officer condoned the delay and posted the matter for final arguments vide order dated 15.9.2016. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Collector, Bastar and the said revision was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 13.3.2017. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector, the petitioners preferred second revision before the Commissioner, Bastar Division and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 27.12.2018. Against the said order, the petitioners filed a Revenue Revision Case before the Board of Revenue and that too was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.3.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though Smt. Hembati, Smt. Bhagwati and Ku. Savitri had knowledge of order of mutation which was passed on 1.2.2001 but they preferred an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer on 20.7.2015 and the learned Sub-Divisional Officer committed illegality in condoning the delay as no sufficient reason was assigned by the respondents in that application and the other authorities i.e. Collector, Commissioner and the Board of Revenue have committed error of law by affirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 15.9.2016.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that 3 while condoning the delay liberal approach should be adopted by the Revenue Authorities. It is a well settled principle of law and the same has been applied by the Sub-Divisional Officer. It is specifically observed by the Sub-Divisional Officer that the appeal has been preferred within limitation from date of knowledge and therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
6. It appears that Smt. Hembati and Smt. Bhagwati have preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue on 20.7.2015 against the order of mutation dated 1.2.2001 alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 15.9.2016 after considering the averments made in the application.
7. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer has been affirmed by the Collector, Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. There is concurrent finding of the facts recorded by the learned Courts below and in the opinion of this Court, learned Sub-Divisional Officer has not committed any infirmity while condoning the delay. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi