1 2025:CGHC:34324 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4108 of 2019  Bharat Lal Kurre S/o Shri Padum Lal Kurre Aged About 57 Years R/o Nawagarh, Sambalpur, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Commissioner (Revenue) Division Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Nawagarh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5. Smt. Asha Kurre W/o Yogendra Kurre Sarpanch, Village Panchayat, Sambalpur, Block Development Navagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Palash Jha, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondent SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.21 16:02:08 +0530 2 authorities for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 (Annexure P/9) passed by respondent No. 2/Commissioner. 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Respondent No. 5 convened a meeting of the Gram Panchayat Sambalpur and passed a resolution for the construction of a commercial complex at the bus stand on 23.01.2019. A complaint was made against such a resolution, and thereafter, the resolution was challenged by filing an appeal before the Collector. The Collector vide its order dated 10.05.2019 quashed the resolution dated 23.01.2019 and remitted the matter back to the Sub- Divisional Officer for further action. The said order was challenged by respondent No. 5 by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, Division Durg. The appeal preferred by respondent No. 5 was barred by limitation, but no application for condonation of delay was moved. The learned Commissioner afforded one opportunity to respondent No. 5 to move an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, at the same time, the effect and operation of the order passed by the Collector dated 10.05.2019 was stayed. 3. The petitioner filed a writ petition against the order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner inter alia on the ground that the application for condonation of delay was not moved, and therefore, the appeal was not maintainable. It is also pleaded that when the appeal was not maintainable, the interim order could not have been passed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Commissioner while exercising the appellate power took cognizance of the appeal, which 3 was barred by limitation and also granted interim relief in favour of respondent No. 5. He would further contend that though the opportunity was granted to respondent No. 5 to move an application for condonation of delay, but it has not been moved yet. He would pray to set-aside the order passed by the Commissioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the issue of maintainability can be raised before the Commissioner in the pending appeal. With regard to the application for condonation of delay, they would submit that the learned Commissioner has granted one opportunity to respondent No. 5 to move the said application. They would contend that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. Admittedly, a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat for the construction of a shopping complex, and the said resolution was quashed by the Collector vide order dated 10.05.2019. The said order was challenged by respondent No. 5 by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, Division Durg, but despite the delay in filing the appeal, the application for condonation of delay was not moved. 8. The Commissioner granted one opportunity to respondent No. 5 to move an application for condonation of delay. At the same time, looking to the nature of urgency, the learned Commissioner stayed the effect and operation of the order passed by the Collector. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that the Commissioner has not condoned the delay, but rather has granted one opportunity to respondent No. 5 to move an application for condonation of delay, in my opinion, the Commissioner has rightly exercised its discretion. Respondent No. 5 is 4 directed to move an application for condonation of delay before the learned Commissioner in the pending appeal within a period of 30 days from today and the said application shall be decided by the Commissioner within a further period of 30 days, and for a period of 60 days, the interim order granted on 26.11.2019 in favor of the petitioner shall remain continue. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise all available grounds, including the maintainability, before the learned Commissioner. 10. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant