Prem Kumar Tiwari v. Revenue Board of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur and others)
Case Details
1 RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.07.17 18:18:03 +0530 2025:CGHC:33268 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 702 of 2025 1 - Premkumar Tiwari S/o Late Shri Vishwanath Tiwari Aged About 71 Years Occupation- Agriculture, Caste- Bramhan, R/o Vill.- Kanteli, Tah. Mungeli, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Revenue Board Of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Additional Collector Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mungeli, Tah. Mungeli, Distt.- (C.G.) Bilaspur 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
which prima facie appears to be unreasonable, it would be duty of the applicant to explain the delay in filing restoration application, 3 review petition or the application for modification/clarification itself, however, no separate application may be necessary, therefore, counsel for the applicant is directed to apprise this Court that under which circumstances, this MCC has been filed after lapse of more than 9 & ½ years. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that W.P.(227) 4626 of 2011 was dismissed on 16.10.2015, but the counsel representing the applicant/petitioner did not inform the petitioner about dismissal of the said writ petition. He further submits that since the applicant/petitioner had engaged a counsel, therefore, it was not required to the applicant/petitioner to attend each and every hearing, therefore, he was under the impression that progress in case will be informed by the counsel, but when after passing of 7 to 8 years, the counsel did not inform about the fate of the case, thereafter applicant/petitioner enquired about the progress of his case, then only he came to know in the first week of July, 2025 that his writ petition has been dismissed on 16.10.2015. He further submits that when the applicant/petitioner contacted the office of his counsel, then it was informed that his counsel had died in the year 2022-2023. He further submits that delay in filing MCC is bonafide, therefore, same may be condoned. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submit that there is inordinate delay of 9 years and 6 months and the cause of delay 4 shown is not sufficient and bonafide, therefore, instant MCC is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The instant MCC has been filed for restoration of W.P.(227) 4626 of 2011, which was dismissed on 16.10.2015 for want of prosecution. This MCC has been filed on 07.07.2025 i.e. after
Arguments
: Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For State/Respondent/s : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi 2 Order on Board 16/07/2025 1. This MCC has been preferred by the applicant for restoration of W.P.(227) 4626 of 2011 (Prem Kumar Tiwari vs. Revenue Board of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur and others). 2. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. 3. Though MCC has been filed by the applicant for restoration of W.P.(227) 4626 of 2011, which has been dismissed on 16.10.2015 for want of prosecution, but this application has been filed after more than 9 & ½ years, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant is directed to explain the delay caused in filing the restoration application. However, Registry has pointed out that since restoration is sought for writ petition filed under Article 227, therefore, condonation of delay application is not required, which is not found to be in-consonance with the observation made vide order dated 13.12.2016 by Coordinate Bench in MCC No.591/2016. In that case, though it has been observed referring judgments of Apex Court that ordinarily MCC’s filed for restoration, review petition or the application for modification/clarification could not be dismissed on the ground of delay, but it has also been observed that if the same has been filed after long lapse of time
Decision
lapse of more than 9 years of dismissal of the writ petition. Living in slumber of applicant/petitioner for about 9 years without taking any information with regard to progress of the case shows that the petitioner was completely negligent, though he has engaged an advocate to represent his case, as such it was not necessary to appear in each and every hearing but not seeking any information from his counsel with regard to progress of his case for such a long period cannot be treated as lightly, because it was the duty of the applicant/petitioner also to enquire about his case time to time from his counsel, but in the instant case the applicant/petitioner has not enquired about his case for about 7 to 8 years from the date of dismissal. Such inordinate delay cannot be capsuled with bonafideness. 8. Further perusal of record of W.P.(227) 4626 of 2011 shows that the land was purchased in the name of Shri Mahadev Mandir and the father of the petitioner was said to be the “Sarwakara” of that temple and the land was pertaining to the tribal person, therefore, finding it to be purchased dehorning the provision of Section 170- 5 B (1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, it was directed to be returned to the original owner, who was a tribal. This proceeding was challenged by filing revenue cases which was taken upto the Board of Revenue by petitioner in his personal capacity. But, since, land in dispute was pertaining to Shri Mahadev Mandir, therefore, petitioner himself or his father were not having any locus to challenge the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mungeli dated 30.10.1996 (Annexure P/4 of writ petition), rather competent person to challenge that order was original owner of the land in dispute i.e. Shri Mahadev Mandir. 9. In view of the above, the cause of inordinate delay shown by applicant cannot be said to be bonafide, hence, I do not feel inclined to condone inordinate delay in filing of application for restoration of W.P.(227) 4626 of 2011. Therefore, I.A. No.01/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing of restoration application is rejected. As a result, instant MCC is also dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi