Chattisgarh High Court
Liti vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 June, 2025
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)
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.
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
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
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
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
