Dismissed¶29

Mohan v. Shankar Yadav

Chhattisgarh HC25 Apr 2025WPC/1843/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; WPC No. 1843 of 2020; Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal; 05.08.2025; limitation; Section 5 Indian Limitation Act 1963; sufficient cause; condonation of delay; time-barred appeal; Section 250 Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959; demarcation; encroachment; Khasra No.58 village Shyampur Chhuikhadan Rajnandgaon; certified copy knowledge; revenue appeal hierarchy Tehsildar SDO(R) Khairagarah Commissioner Durg Division Board of Revenue Bilaspur; Mohan v. Shankar Yadav; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was aware of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)'s order dated 03.09.2016 by 07.09.2016 itself, when his counsel Sandeep Chandel applied for its certified copy, and by 28.09.2016 when the certified copy was delivered to that counsel. ¶25

Mohan Vs Shankar Yadav — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner, filed on 17.07.2017 against the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)'s order dated 03.09.2016, was barred by time notwithstanding his application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 claiming knowledge of the order only on 23.06.2017, and whether the consequent dismissals by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue call for interference.

¶24

Court's answer

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner's application under Section 5 of the Act, 1963 nowhere stated that his counsel had not provided him the copy, it cannot be said that he was unaware of the order dated 03.09.2016 or came to know of it only on 23.06.2017.

¶26

Key takeaways

The Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg committed no illegality in dismissing the petitioner's appeal as barred by time, and the Board of Revenue committed no illegality in affirming that dismissal; hence no interference is called for in the petition.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPC No. 1843 of 2020 (High Court of Chhattisgarh, Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, 05.08.2025): The petitioner challenged the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur order dated 21.01.2020 dismissing his revision as time-barred, which had affirmed the Commissioner, Durg Division order dated 26/08/2019 rejecting his appeal against the SDO(R) Khairagarah order dated 03.09.2016 (which had upheld demarcation of Khasra No.58, village Shyampur, finding 0.10 acre of Respondent No.1's land encroached by the petitioner and directing removal, in Revenue Case No.8-A/70/2014-15 arising under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959). The Court found the petitioner knew of the SDO(R)'s order by 07.09.2016, when his counsel applied for its certified copy (delivered 28.09.2016), and that his Section 5, Indian Limitation Act, 1963 plea of knowledge only on 23.06.2017 was untenable since the application never averred that the counsel had withheld the copy. Holding no illegality in the time-bar dismissal or its affirmation, the Court dismissed the petition with no order as to costs.

2025:CGHC:38782

NAFR

Digitally signed by ARPAN ARPAN SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:2025.08.05 18:33:40 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 1843 of 2020

¶7

Mohan S/o Jethu Gond, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Shyampur, Police Station And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Shankar Yadav S/o Satram, Aged About 48 Years ,Cast - Thethwar, R/o Village Shyampur, Police Station And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - The Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Addl. Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate
For State/Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, P.L.

¶15

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

¶16

Order On Board

¶17

05.08.2025

¶18

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/Non-applicant-Mohan questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 21.01.2020 (Annexure P-1), passed by Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Case

¶19

¶20

No.RN/15/R/A-70/244/2019, whereby, the revision preferred by him has been dismissed holding it to be barred by time while affirming the order dated 26/08/2019 passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg in Case No.341/A-70/2016-17.

¶21

2. From perusal of the record, it appears that an application (Annexure R- 1/6) was made by the Respondent No.1/applicant-Shankar Yadav before the Court of Tehsildar, Chhuikhadan of District Rajnandgaon as per the provision prescribed under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code, 1959’), alleging therein, that he is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.58 ad-measuring 0.20 acre situated at village Shyampur, Tehsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, but was in apprehension that the non-applicant/petitioner has encroached some portion of his land, therefore, he moved an application before the Tahsildar seeking demarcation of his land and, the concerned Revenue Authority vide its order dated 18.11.2014 has demarcated the alleged land wherein, 0.10 acre of the land held by the Respondent No.1 was found to be encroached by the petitioner/non-applicant-Mohan and accordingly, the said authority has directed for the removal of the alleged encroachment while allowing the said application filed under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 vide order dated 21.03.2016, in Revenue Case No.8-A/70/2014-15.

¶22

3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Sub-divisional Officer (Revenue) Khairagarah, who, in-turn, vide its order dated 03.09.2016 (Annexure P/5) passed in Appeal Case No.49-A/70/2015-16 has dismissed the same and, it

¶23

¶24

appears further that, being aggrieved with the said order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner/non-applicant before the Commissioner on 17.07.2017. Since the appeal, so preferred, was beyond the prescribed period of limiation, therefore, an application was made by him under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 submitting therein, that he came to know about the said order, as passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) only on 23.06.2017, as such, it is within time from the date of the knowledge of the said order.

¶25

4. Although, it was stated by the petitioner that he came to know about the pronouncement of the said of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 23.06.2017, but it, however, appears from perusal of the record that his counsel namely-Sandeep Chandel had applied for obtaining the certified copy of the said order dated 03.09.2016 passed by SubDivisional Officer (Revenue), on 07.09.2016 and in pursuance thereof, itwas delivered to him on 28.09.2016. It, thus, appears that the petitioner/non-applicant was very well aware on 07.09.2016 that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) has passed the order on 03.09.2016 when he applied for obtaining the certified copy of the same and, even on 28.09.2016, when the certified copy of the said order, was provided to his said counsel, namely, Sandeep Chandel.

¶26

5. It is to be seen further that in his application filed under Section 5 of the Act, 1963, it has not been stated by the petitioner/non-applicant that the counsel of him has not provided the copy of the same, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner/non-applicant was not aware regarding the passing of the said order dated 03.09.2016 passed by Sub-divisional Officer (Revenue), or came to know only on 23.06.2017,

¶27

¶28

as alleged by him, and, instead, he was found to be aware on 07.09.2016. In view thereof, the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg has not committed any illegality in dismissing his appeal preferred against the said order dated 03.09.2016 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), holding it to be barred by time and the Board of Revenue vide its order impugned dated 21.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) in Case No.RN/15/R/A-70/244/2019 has not committed any illegality in affirming the same, so as to call for any interference in this petition.

¶29

6. The petition, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶30

No order as to cost(s).

¶31

Sd/(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE

¶32

Arpan

Mohan v. Shankar Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan v. Shankar Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Hulsi Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/s Sarkar Construction Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/s Navbharat Fuse Company Ltd. Vs Bilaspur Corrugated Industries

Dhanesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Faleshwar Sahu

Ramnarayan Saket Vs the State of Chhattisgarh