1 2026:CGHC:24481 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 583 of 2026 Rajesh Kumar Bhandge S/o- Late Shri Vinayak Rao Bhandge, Aged About 58 Years R/o- Shaskiya Heeralal Kavyopadhyay Mahavidyalay Ke Pass, Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Smt. Sushila Devi Verma W/o- Shri Leeladhar Verma, R/o- Village Khilora, Tehsil-Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 17/06/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23.04.2026 passed by the SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.06.19 17:21:45 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court at Raipur in Revenue Case No. R.N./14/R/A-6/564/2025, whereby the revenue revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was the owner of the subject land and his name has been mutated from so many years, however, vide order dated 02.09.2002, the name of the respondent was mutated in the revenue record, which was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. When the petitioner came to know about the same, he filed the appeal against the order dated 02.09.2002 and the order dated 18.10.2002, before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Abhanpur, District Raipur on 15.12.2017. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the SDO (Revenue), Abhanpur vide order dated 07.11.2022 and the order of mutation of the name of the respondent was set aside. The order dated 07.11.2022 was challenged by the respondent before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, by filing the appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The said appeal was though delayed by about two years, however, the Commissioner allowed the application for condonation of delay and admitted the appeal for final hearing vide its order dated 14.11.2025. The said order passed by the Commissioner, Raipur was challenged by the petitioner before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court at Raipur, which has been dismissed vide order dated 23.04.2026. She would further submit that there is no sufficient explanation submitted by the respondent for delayed filing of the appeal before the Commissioner as her presence was marked before the SDO (Revenue) at the time when the appeal of the petitioner was 3 decided. If he would have been aggrieved by the order passed by the SDO (Revenue), he can have filed the appeal within time, yet he has filed the appeal after about two years without any sufficient reason, therefore, the Commissioner ought not to condone the delay and rejected the application instead of allowing it, and therefore, the Board of Revenue has also dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner without considering the reasons for condonation of delay and the presence of the respondent in the proceeding before the SDO (Revenue). Therefore, the orders passed by the Board of Revenue dated 23.04.2026 and by the Commissioner dated 14.11.2025 may be set aside and the appeal filed by the respondent before the Commissioner, Raipur Division may be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. In the present petition, the allowing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the respondent before the Commissioner, Raipur Division is subject matter. On perusal of the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division (Annexure P-2), it transpires that the respondent had prayed for condonation of delay by saying that the passing of the order by the SDO (Revenue) was not in her knowledge, and as and when she came to know about the impugned order passed by SDO (Revenue), she has filed the appeal and the Commissioner, Raipur Division after considering the explanation submitted by the respondent for delay in filing the appeal, passed the order and allowed the application, admitted the appeal and fixed the case for final hearing. The Board of 4 Revenue has also considered the actual aspects of the case in para 7.6 of its order and held that the Commissioner has considered the explanation submitted by the respondent is the sufficient explanation for condonation of delay. Since the appeal filed by the petitioner before the SDO (Revenue) was considered after about 17 years, the delay of one year and 10 months caused by the respondent in filing the appeal before the Commissioner, Raipur Division can also be condoned and it can not be said that the order passed by Commissioner, Raipur Division is arbitrary or without jurisdiction. It has also been observed that appeal itself is pending before the Commissioner, Raipur Division and the parties may submit their case before them. 6. In the case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 (4) SCC 181, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 5 7. After having considered the entire documents submitted by the petitioner in the present writ petition, I do not find any jurisdictional error committed either by the Commissioner, Raipur Division or by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court at Raipur. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit