1 2026:CGHC:20289 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 359 of 2023 1 - Lalman S/o Late Amar Sai Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Seoni, Tahsil Marwahi, District Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector District Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (R) Marwahi, District Gourella-Pendra- Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tahsildar Marwahi, District Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Bhelan Singh S/o Late Amar Sai Aged About 55 Years Caste Bhariya, R/o Village Seoni, Tahsil Marwahi, District Gourella-Pendra- Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Mandri Bai @ Ram Bai D/o Late Amar Sai Aged About 50 Years Caste Bhariya, Village Seoni, Tahsil Marwahi, District Gourella-Pendra- Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Dholi Bai @ Shyam Bai D/o Late Amar Sai Aged About 48 Years RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Village Seoni, Tahsil Marwahi, District Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Richa Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, PL For Respondents No. 5 to 7 : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1. That this Hon ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to produce the entire records of appeal bearing Revenue Case No.202109281100010/A-6/2020 2021. 10.2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of the appeal bearing Revenue Case No. 202109281100010/A-6/2020-2021 pending before the respondent no.3. 10.3. Any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the father of the petitioner was the 3 recorded owner of the land in question, and upon his demise, the petitioner, being the sole surviving legal heir, submitted an application before respondent No. 4 seeking mutation of the said land in his favour; that upon receipt of the said application, respondent No. 4 conducted due proceedings in accordance with law and, after completion thereof, passed an order directing mutation of the land in favour of the petitioner, pursuant to which the revenue records were duly updated in the petitioner’s name; however, thereafter, respondents No. 5 to 7, claiming themselves to be the legal heirs of one Amar Sai, preferred an appeal before respondent No. 3 challenging the said mutation order; that in the said appellate proceedings, respondent No. 3, acting in an arbitrary manner and contrary to settled legal principles, has admitted the appeal without first considering or condoning the delay, without granting appropriate permission, and even in the absence of respondents No. 5 to 7, who are the appellants therein, and is proceeding with the matter, thereby giving rise to serious procedural irregularities and illegality. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s name was duly mutated in the revenue records by the Tahsildar vide order dated 09.09.2017, following the death of the petitioner’s father; it is further submitted that the appeal preferred thereafter was hopelessly barred by an inordinate delay of about five years, however, on 21.02.2022, when the matter was taken up before the SDO (Revenue), Marwahi, neither the petitioner nor her counsel 4 could appear, and on the very same day the petitioner was proceeded ex parte and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also considered and allowed without assigning any plausible or cogent reasons; it is contended that prior to the said date, the counsel for the petitioner had duly appeared on 19.01.2022, and subsequently, on 07.02.2022, when the matter was listed, it was adjourned due to the Presiding Officer being engaged in administrative work, and the next date i.e., 21.02.2022 was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or her counsel, as a result of which they could not appear; it is therefore submitted that the ex parte order passed on 21.02.2022 is not in accordance with law, particularly when the petitioner was not afforded any effective opportunity of hearing, especially on the crucial issue of limitation, which goes to the root of the matter, and despite the delay of five years, the same has been condoned without proper consideration or reasoning. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the matter is presently pending for consideration on merits before the concerned SDO (Revenue), it would be just and proper that the order dated 21.02.2022, whereby the petitioner was proceeded ex parte, be set aside; it is further prayed that the concerned SDO (Revenue) be directed to reconsider the issue of limitation afresh, after affording due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter to decide the matter on merits strictly in accordance with law. 5 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order is well-reasoned, justified on merits, and has been passed strictly in accordance with law; it is further contended that on earlier occasions as well, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner failed to appear before the Court on two or three dates, and therefore, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to contend that she was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From a perusal of the record, it appears that on 19.01.2022 the counsel for the petitioner duly appeared before the Court, whereupon the matter was fixed for 07.02.2022 for consideration of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; however, on 07.02.2022 the matter was adjourned as the concerned SDO (Revenue) was engaged in administrative work, and thereafter the next date was fixed as 21.02.2022, but this fact was not communicated to the counsel for the petitioner, which is evident from the order-sheet as no signature of the counsel is found recorded therein; consequently, on 21.02.2022, when the matter was taken up, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner due to lack of knowledge of the said date, and in such circumstances, the concerned SDO (Revenue) ought to have granted a further opportunity by fixing a fresh date of hearing after ensuring due communication to the petitioner; however, instead of doing so, and without assigning any reasons or affording an opportunity to the 6 petitioner to raise objections, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was considered and allowed, which action is not in accordance with law. 8. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further taking into account the procedural irregularities noted herein, the matter is remanded back to the concerned SDO (Revenue), Marwahi, and the order dated 21.02.2022, whereby the petitioner was proceeded ex parte and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was decided, is hereby set aside, the concerned SDO (Revenue) is directed to afford a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to consider the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act afresh in accordance with law; for this purpose, the petitioner is directed to appear before the SDO (Revenue), Marwahi on 20th May, 2026, and in the event any party fails to appear on the said date, the SDO (Revenue), Marwahi shall fix a fresh date after duly informing both parties and thereafter proceed to hear and decide the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat