1 2025:CGHC:49821 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2987 of 2024 1 - Vaseemuddin S/o Late Shri Hafizuddin, Aged About 44 Years R/o House No. 9/818, Street No.3, Sailani Nagar, Sanjay Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Shama Parveen D/o Late Shri Hafizuddin, Aged About 45 Years R/o House No. 9/818, Street No.3, Sailani Nagar, Sanjay Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Village- Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Board Of Revenue, Through Its President, Circuit Court- Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner, Raipur, Division- Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The Tehsildar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Jitendra Deshmukh S/o Late Shi Narhari Rao Deshmukh, R/o Jyoti Nagar, Kota, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, PL. For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 07.10.2025 1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: “10. RELIEF(S) SOUGHT: 1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly quash or set aside the order dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by Board of Revenue, Circuit Court Raipur (C.G.) in the interest of justice and allow the application under sec 5 of the Limitation act and direct the Commissioner to decide the second appeal on its own merits in the interest of justice. 2. Any other writ or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued..” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that vide order dated 28.03.2019, respondent/SDO(R) has passed the following order: “izdj.k is’k A izdj.k esa vkns’k izfr rS;kj ugh izdj.k iwoZor A” and, thereafter, on 23.08.2019, the SDO(R) has passed the final order in absence of the parties or their Counsels and said order never communicated to the petitioner. Against which, petitioner has filed the appeal before the concerned Commissioner, which was dismissed/rejected on 25.01.2024 on the ground that there is delay in filing of the appeal. Against which, petitioner has filed the revision application before the respondent/Board of Revenue, 3 which also came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.04.2024 on the ground that there is delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner. Aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioner has filed this writ petition and came-up before this Court with aforesaid prayer/relief. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents/State supported the impugned order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition including the orders passed by the respondent-authority. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that it has to be borne in mind that generally the Courts adopt a liberal approach in considering the application for condonation of delay on the ground of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, because the concept such as liberal approach is for substantial justice, therefore, generally delay in preferring an appeal are required to be condoned in the interest of justice, where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay. 6. In case at hand, from the records, it is crystal clear that on 28.03.2019 order has not been prepared, but there is no date has been given by the concerned SDO for pronouncement of the order and after about 05 months, SDO concerned has passed the final order on 23.08.2019. 7. It is also pertinent to mention here that there is no documents 4 available on record which shows that order has been communicated to the petitioner or his counsel. 8. For the foregoing reasons/discussion, impugned order dated 25.01.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner and order dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent/Board of Revenue are hereby quashed. 9. Matter is remanded back to the concerned Commissioner for fresh adjudication on its own in accordance with relevant rules/law/regulation, after giving proper/sufficient opportunity of hearing the parties. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 10. In view of above, writ petition is disposed of with above direction/observation. CC as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-