1 - Liti S/o Late Mainam Aged About 40 Years Caste Madiya, R/o Badebadam v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:24136 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2877 of 2025 1 - Liti S/o Late Mainam Aged About 40 Years Caste Madiya, R/o Badebadam, P.S. Parpa, Tahsil Jagdalpur District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh Bilaspur Circuit Court Bastar Place Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector/ Upper Collector Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Jagdalpur District Bastar (Chhattisgarh)
Legal Reasoning
5 - Anil Singh Tomar S/o Shri Kamta Prasad Tomar Aged About 42 Years Caste Non-Tribal, R/o S.A.F. Colony, Kangoli, P.S. Parpa, Tahsil Jagdalpur District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 16/06/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities particularly respondent no. 2 to consider the revision petition and heard on merit in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that respondent no. 5 has filed the revision before respondent no. 3 against the order dated 19.07.2021 passed by the respondent no. 4 and it is stated that the respondent no. 5 purchased the land bearing khasra no. 40 area 1.30 hectare which is situated at village Bade Badam, Tahsil Jagdalpur District Bastar, C.G. from Kalawati wife of Ramsingh Mahra through registered sale deed and thereafter, the respondent no. 5 had constructed the boundary wall upon his land, then the petitioner raised objection for construction of boundary wall upon government land. The private respondent no. 5 filed application before the learned Naib Tahsildar under Section 250 of C.G. Land Revenue 3 Code in which the Tahsildar passed the order dated 09.08.2017 against the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner filed an application before the respondent no. 4 in which the respondent no. 4 has passed the order in favour of the petitioner vide its order dated 19.07.2021 in which the respondent no. 3 has allowed the revision petition of the private respondent no. 5 vide its order dated 30.12.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law and hence it is liable to be set-aside. The respondent no. 2 should have adopt the liberal view while passing the impugned order. The respondent no. 2 has not followed Section 5 of the Limitation Act and has wrongly rejected the application. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that respondent no. 2 has rejected the revision filed by the petitioner because the petitioner has obtained the certified copy of the order dated 30.12.2021 on 07.01.2022 and he has filed the revision on 17.08.2023, i.e., after lapse of 1 year and 8 months. Thus, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 provides as under: 5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.— Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies 4 the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation.—The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section. 8. On perusal of record, this Court found that the respondent no. 5 purchased the land bearing Khasra No. 40 area 1.30 hectare at Village Bade Badam, Tahsil Jagdalpur District Bastar C.G. When the respondent no. 5 constructed the boundary wall upon his land the petitioner raised an objection stating that the said land is a government land. Therefore, the respondent no. 5 filed an application before the Naib Tahsildar under Section 250 of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 in which the Tahsildar passed an order dated 09.08.2017 against the petitioner. Then the respondent no. 5 filed revision before the respondent no. 3 wherein the respondent no. 3 allowed the revision and passed the order dated 30.12.2021 directing the SDO (R), Jagdalpur to comply with the order passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur. The petitioner against the order dated 30.12.2021 filed revision before respondent no. 2 but the respondent no. 2 rejected the revision vide its order dated 31.01.2024 stating that the compliance of the order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur is pending and the revision has been filed by the revisionist after lapse of around 1 year and 8 months. 9. Therefore, this Court finds that since the petitioner has obtained the certified copy of the order dated 30.12.2021 on 07.01.2022 and he has 5 filed the revision on 17.08.2023, i.e., after lapse of 1 year and 8 months, therefore, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was sleeping over his right. 10.Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 provides that any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may be admitted after prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. 11.The expression ‘sufficient cause’ in section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay, whereas in the instant case the petitioner had preferred an appeal after a delay of about 1 year and 8 months and it appears that there is negligence and deliberate inaction on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner has not shown the sufficient cause and cogent reason for filing the appeal after delay of about 1 year and 8 months. 12.Therefore, there is no good ground to entertain this petition. 13.Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima