1 2025:CGHC:53517-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 784 of 2025 Manish Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Shankar Lal Agrawal Aged About 54 Years R/o Subhash Nagar Gond Para Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Collector O,ce Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Division O,cer/magistrate Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tehsildar Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant :Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/State :Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt Advocate. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.04 18:00:05 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State 2. The present intra Court appeal has been 1led by the appellant against the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1577/2021 (Manish Kumar Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed o8 the writ petition 1led by the appellant/writ petitioner. 3. The appellant also 1led an I.A. No. 01 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 111 days in preferring the appeal. 4. Learned counsel, appearing for the respondents/State opposes the application for condonation of delay 1led by the appellant/writ petitioner and submits that the application for condonation of delay of 111 days is without merit as the appellant 3 has failed to show any su,cient or bona 1de cause for the delay. The plea of non-communication with counsel is vague and unsupported, showing negligence on the part of the appellant. The explanation o8ered is an afterthought, and mere ignorance of the order cannot justify such delay. Hence, the application deserves to be dismissed as barred by limitation. 5. Upon perusal of the record and considering the explanation o8ered by the appellant, it is evident that the delay of 111 days in 1ling the appeal has not been satisfactorily explained by assigning su,cient and cogent reasons. The reason assigned by the appellant regarding non-communication with the engaged counsel is vague, unsubstantiated, and does not constitute a su,cient cause within the meaning of law. The appellant has remained negligent in pursuing the matter and has failed to show due diligence. Moreover, the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1577/2021 merely directs the petitioner to move an application before the Tahsildar, Bilaspur, for demarcation of the suit land within a 1xed period and is administrative in nature, causing no prejudice to the appellant. In view of the aforesaid, this Court 1nds no justi1cation to condone the inordinate delay. 4 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yunus (Baboobhai) A Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharastra1 has held that: "Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party." 7. In the light of principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-stated judgment (supra) and considering the grounds raised in I.A. No. 01 of 2025, we do not 1nd any good ground to condone the delay of 111 days in preferring the writ appeal. 8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2025 is rejected and consequently thereto, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib 1 (2009) 3 SCC 281