1 2025:CGHC:54113 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3746 of 2025 1. Satishchand S/o Late Vishwanath Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Village - Baima, Tahsil - Beltara, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Prakashchand S/o Late Vishwanath Singh aged about 51 yrs R/o Village - Baima, Tahsil - Beltara, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner Bilaspur Division, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Collector Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Tahsildar Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. Ramavtar S/o Devi Singh Chauhan R/o Village - Baima, Tahsil Beltara, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 06/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 “10.1. The, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to present case. 10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 08/05/2025, passed in Revenue Case No. M/Misc./02/R/A-13/40/2025, passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur arising out of order dated 27/02/2025, passed in the Revenue Case No.279/A-13/2017-18, passed by the respondent No.3. 10.3. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to restore the appeal of the petitioner before the respondent No.2 for hearing, on merits. 10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.6 filed an application before the Tahsildar under Section 131 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code of 1959’) seeking easementary right over the land recorded in name of father of petitioner, which was allowed by Tahsildar vide order dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure P-3), against which first appeal, as provided under Section 44 (1) of the Code of 1959, was preferred by father of petitioner which came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.8.2018 (Annexure P-4) Thereafter, father of petitioner submitted a second appeal before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur and the same was dismissed for want of 3 prosecution on 5.12.2024 because the counsel engaged by father of petitioners did not appear when the appeal was taken up for hearing. She also contended that thereafter an application under Section 35 (3) of the Code of 1959 was submitted for restoration of second appeal, which was rejected vide order dated 27.2.2025 observing that reason assigned in the application for restoration is concocted, which is erroneous. Thereafter, a revision application was preferred by father of petitioners before the Board of Revenue and the same was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 22.5.2025. She further submits that by dismissing appeal for want of prosecution and subsequent dismissal of application for restoration of appeal has left the petitioners unheard on merits. The Board of Revenue has not considered the aspect that claim of petitioners was not considered on merits and pursuant to the impugned order, all the rights of petitioners to contest the case on merits has been closed. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 opposed submissions of learned counsel for petitioners. In alternate, he submits that if this Court is inclined to allow this writ petition, then a direction be issued to the Commissioner to decide second appeal preferred by petitioners’ father within specified period. 4. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents annexed with writ petition. 4 5. Perusal of the order dated 5.12.2024, copy of which is placed by learned counsel for respondent No.6 for perusal of this Court, reveals that that the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur dismissed appeal of father of petitioners for want of prosecution. It is also appearing from the order, Annexure P- 1, that application thereafter filed under Section 35 (3) of the Code of 1959 for restoration of appeal also dismissed observing that grounds as pleaded in the application appear to be concocted. The Board of Revenue also upheld the order of the Commissioner passed on application filed under Section 35 (3) of the Code of 1959. Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution as also dismissal of application for restoration has effect of not providing proper opportunity of hearing on merits of case to petitioners, who succeeded rights of their deceased father. Case filed by any party is to be decided on merits as far as possible. It is not the case that application seeking restoration has been filed with inordinate delay. From the order impugned, Annexure P-1, it is reflecting that after getting knowledge of the order dated 5.12.2024 dismissing the case for want of prosecution, petitioners have moved an application for restoration of second appeal within short period. 6. In a court proceeding, it is the duty of the Court to ensure grant of proper opportunity of hearing to all interested parties and to decide the lis on merits. Therefore, considering the 5 facts and circumstances of case, in the larger interest of justice, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue affirming the the order of the Commissioner dated 27.2.2025 dismissing application filed under Section 35 (3) of the Code of 1959 as also order dated 5.12.2024 dismissing second appeal for want of prosecution is set aside. Consequently, application seeking restoration of second appeal dismissed for want of prosecution is allowed. Second Appeal No.279/A- 13/2017-28 is restored to its original number. Parties are directed to appear before the Court of Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur on 01.12.2025. It is expected from the Commissioner that he shall take all necessary steps to decide second appeal pending before it, in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within an outer limit of three months thereafter. 8. Certified copy as per rule. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-