Dismissed

Smt. Rajani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Sept 2024WPC/4399/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to set aside Board of Revenue’s order dismissing an appeal where the respondent failed to show cause for a three-year delay. The Court found concurrent findings of fact on sufficient cause and relied on precedent to uphold the orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition was dismissed; no discretion was exercised to set aside the impugned order.

Smt. Rajani Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:37665

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 4399 of 2024

¶6

Smt. Rajani D/o Shri Nandanram, W/o Shri Parasanath Aged About 56 Years By Caste - Uraon, R/o Mohalla-Manipur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, (C.G.), Pincode - 497001

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahandi Bhawan New Mantralaya Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Board Of Revenue Circuit Bench At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - The Commissioner Sarguja-Division At Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.)

¶12

4 - The Collector At Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.)

¶13

5 - The S.D.O. (R) At Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.)

¶14

6 - The Tahsildar At Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.)

¶15

7 - Smt. Pushpa Prajapati D/o Late Mohar Lal Prajapati Aged About 55 Years By Caste -

¶16

Urao, R/o Mohalla-Manipur, Tahsil And District Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.)

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner : Shri J.A. Lohani, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 6 : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate For Respondent No. 7 : Shri Aditya Pandey, Advocate

¶19

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

(24/09/2024)

¶22

This petition is for the following reliefs:-

¶23

2 / 4

¶24

10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly call up the entire records pertaining to the impugned order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Revision Case No. R.N./16/R/A-06/149/2022 Village – Manipur in parties’ name “Smt. Rajni vs & Smt. Pushpa Prajapati”, & its revenue – courts below.

¶25

10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly set aside the impugned order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Revision Case No. . R.N./16/R/A-06/149/2022 Village – Manipur in parties’ name “Smt. Rajni vs & Smt. Pushpa Prajapati”, reserving the liberty in favour of the petitioner herein.

¶26

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioners may kindly be passed.

¶27

Facts of the case in brief are that disputed property comprises Khasra Nos. 141, 142, 143, 147, 148, 149, 152, 247/2, 273/1 Rakba respectively 0.089, 0.704 0.328, 0.081, .077, 0.125, 0.328, 0.243, 0.061, total Khasra No. 09 total Rakba 2.036 hectare was recorded in the name of Shivratan. It is the case of the petitioner that Shivratan executed a will on 24.08.1998 in favour of the petitioner and in pursuance of that will the petitioner moved an application under Section 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (for short the “Code of 1959”) before the Tehsildar, Ambikapur, however, as the Tehsildar did not entertain that application, the petitioner under relevant provisions of the Code of 1959 filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Ambikapur which was also dismissed. Against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, the petitioner filed the Second Appeal before the Commissioner, Sarguja Division, which vide order dated 24.03.2014 was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Tehsildar with a direction to decide the application of the petitioner afresh. The Tehsildar vide order dated 06.12.2014 allowed the application of the petitioner and directed for the name of the petitioner to be recorded in the revenue records with respect to the disputed property. Thereafter, respondent No. 7 filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer along with an application for condonation of delay of about three years which was allowed by the SDO on 19.02.2019. Thereafter, second appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Respondent No.3) against the order allowing the application for condonation of delay which also stood dismissed vide order dated 13.06.2022. Petitioner

¶28

3 / 4

¶29

again preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which vide order dated 04.07.2024 came to be dismissed, and it is this order which is under challenge in this petition.

¶30

Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was delay of about three years in preferring the appeal before the SDO Ambikapur by respondent No. 7 and there was no sufficient cause shown in the application for condonation of delay, the SDO committed an illegality and irregularity in allowing the said application which subsequently was erroneously affirmed by the Commissioner and then by the Board of Revenue. He submits that the order impugned suffers from manifest error and that as respondent No. 7 could not provide any sufficient cause for condonation of delay, application of respondent No. 7 for condonation of delay ought to have been rejected and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be struck down.

¶31

Opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that initially the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 16.12.2014 was not within the knowledge of respondent No. 7, the appeal was filed. He submits that the SDO, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue have recorded a finding of fact with regard to satisfaction that respondent No. 7 was able to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay, this Court cannot re-appreciate the finding of fact recorded earlier. Even otherwise, respondent No. 7 was able to sufficient cause for the delay of about three years occurred in filing of the appeal.

¶32

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶33

The order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the Tehsildar was put to challenge before the SDO, of course with the delay of about three years. SDO after satisfying itself about the cause shown for delay, allowed the application for condonation of delay vide order dated 19.02.2019. On instructions, Shri Lohani submits that the appeal is still pending consideration. Thereafter, the finding was affirmed by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. Since there are concurrent findings of fact at three instances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Even otherwise, the appeal is pending for consideration, the petitioner has every right to challenge the same on merits.

¶34

4 / 4

¶35

7 . In the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nagar

¶36

Academy and others reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders allowing the application for condonation of delay. Hence the petition is dismissed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶39

Jyotishi

¶40

Digitally signed by AVANISH AVANISH JYOTISHI JYOTISHI Date: 2024.09.26 10:25:47 +0530

Smt. Rajani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rajni Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Xxx Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Baijnath Koushal Vs Bhilai Steel Plant through CEO

Kishor Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh