1 2025:CGHC:16493 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 344 of 2023 1 - Bhuvan Sahu S/o Rampariksha Sahu, Aged About 54 Years R/o Village - Baijalpur, Tahsil And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh 2 - Govind Sahu S/o Rampariksha Sahu, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village - Baijalpur, Tahsil And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Bemetara, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar, Bemetara, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh 5 - Swaroop Singh S/o Anand Singh Thakur, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Baijalpur, Tahsil And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Bhupendra Sukul, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Prabhakar Singh Chandel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 08.04.2025 1 Heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Santosh Bharat, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondents No.1 to 4/State and Mr. Bhupendra Sukul, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Prabhakar Singh YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.15 11:04:46 +0530 2 Chandel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5. 2 The instant petition is preferred by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution with the following relief(s):- “10.1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record of case no RN/23/B/A-57/71/2022 from learned Board of Revenue and case no. 03/A-5/year 2018-19 from the court of the respondent no. 4. 10.2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and the impugned order dated 28.09.2022 (Annex. P- 1) passed by learned Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (CG) passed in case no. RN/23/B/A- 57/71/2022 and impugned order dated 11.11.2019 (Annex. P-4) passed by the respondent no. 4 in case no. 03/A-5/year 2018-19 may kindly be set-aside, in the interest of justice. 10.3] That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss the application filed by the respondent no. u/s 35 (3) of Chhattisgarh 3 Land Revenue Code 1959 (Annex. P-3) in the interest of justice. 10.4] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are challenging the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the respondent No. 2 has been affirmed and the revision has been dismissed at motion stage itself. He further submits that respondent No. 5 has filed an application under Section 89 read with Section 113 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959, before the respondent No. 4 and same was registered on 31.12.2016 and notices were issued to the petitioners, thereafter for some or the other reason, the matter got adjourned on few occasion in which the respondent No. 5 remained present. It is submitted that lastly on 12.06.2017, respondent No. 5 appeared before the respondent No. 4 and thereafter for about 2 years, the respondent No. 5, who was the applicant himself, did not appear before the respondent No. 4 and vide order dated 06.05.2019, dismissed the case for want of prosecution. It has been contended that the petitioners were duly represented through their 4 counsel on each and every hearing of the case and even on the date, when the case was dismissed for want of prosecution, the counsel for the petitioners, was present and thereafter, near about lapse of 6 months, on 11.11.2019, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for restoration of the case under Section 35 (3) of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, but the respondent No.5 had not filed any application for condonation of delay in filling the application for restoration application. It has been further contended that respondent No. 4, in very mechanical manner, without application of mind, without issuing any notice to the petitioners, without affording them any opportunity of hearing, without considering the fact that, no application for coridonation of delay is filed, without appreciating the fact, that, once the case is dismissed, he becomes functus-officio and can not review its own order, without getting sanction form its immediate higher authority, has on that day itself has allowed the application and case is restored. It has been argued that being aggrieved with the order dated 11.11.2019, the petitioners preferred revision before the respondent No. 3 herein, who in turn, dismissed the revision only on the ground that, in the application filed by respondent No. 5, he has shown sufficient reason for his non-presence, hence the order passed by the respondent No. 4 herein, cannot be faulted with. It has been further argued that against the order of the respondent No.4, the petitioners went in revision, which was dismissed on 10.03.2022 and subsequently, the learned Board of Revenue, 5 Bilaspur, by way of the impugned order dated 28.09.2022 has also dismissed the case at motion stage itself. 4 It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities are absolutely illegal and against the mandate of Section 35 (3) of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 and therefore, the impugned orders are bad in law and liable to be set-aside. 5 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, since all the revenue Courts have passed the similar orders while declining to interfere with the restoration, I do not find present to be a fit case for interference. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tahsildar concerned on 06.05.2025 along with certified copy of this order and the Tahsildar concerned is directed to hear all the parties while giving proper opportunity of hearing and to pass appropriate order on merits. 6 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion into the merits of the case. 7 In view of the above, instant writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/-- - (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh