1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 675 of 2026 1 - Smt. Kodiya Uraon W/o Late Prasad Uraon Aged About 68 Years R/o Mariyampara Balrampur Tahsil- Balrampur District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 2 - Juginder Kujur S/o Late Prasad Uraon Aged About 41 Years R/o Mariyampara Balrampur Tahsil- Balrampur District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - Raju Kujur S/o Late Mahendra Uraon Aged About 23 Years R/o Mariyampara Balrampur Tahsil- Balrampur District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - Rohit Kujur S/o Late Mahendra Uraon Aged About 19 Years R/o Mariyampara Balrampur Tahsil- Balrampur District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5 - Smt Sukhani Kujur W/o Late Charku Uraon Aged About 70 Years R/o Mariyampara Balrampur Tahsil- Balrampur District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 6 - Ranjeet Kujur S/o Late Kahendra Uraon Aged About 36 Years R/o Mariyampara Balrampur Tahsil- Balrampur District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 7 - Rajan Kujur S/o Late Gosai Uraon Aged About 69 Years R/o Mariyampara Balrampur Tahsil- Balrampur District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue New Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.06.24 11:01:36 +0530 2 3 - The Commissioner Sarguja Division Ambikapur District- Sarguja (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar Tahsil Balrampur District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Khusboo Khotey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 23/06/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, in Revenue Revision Case No. RN/27/R/A-68/6/2026, whereby the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay, has been rejected, and consequently, the revision has also been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners had diligently pursued their case before the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, through their counsel. However, the order was passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, on 21.07.2025, but they were not aware of the passing of the order. In the month of January, 2026, when they came to know about the order passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, they immediately contacted their counsel and, after obtaining a certified copy of the impugned order, filed their revision before the Board of Revenue along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. The 3 petitioners are illiterate persons residing in a remote area, and they were dependent upon their counsel. They explained in their application that when the order passed by the Tahsildar was going to be executed, they came to know about the passing of the order by the Commissioner. They immediately contacted their counsel and filed their revision. The matter pertains to their dispossession from their houses, in which they have been residing for a long time. The Board of Revenue, instead of dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, ought to have considered the case on merits by condoning the delay. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the Board of Revenue for consideration on its merits. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes and submits that the petitioners were under an obligation to immediately challenge the order passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, dated 21.07.2025. However, they kept silent for a considerable period and all of a sudden started challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, which was delayed by more than 7 months. The explanation submitted by the petitioners is not sufficient, and in the absence of any sufficient explanation, the Board of Revenue has rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently their revision has also been dismissed. The petitioners were encroachers on government land and they cannot claim equity on the ground of bona fide residence over the subject land. The order passed by the Board of Revenue is in accordance with law and does not require any interference. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. Present is a case where the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue has been dismissed, holding that the petitioners appear to be negligent in prosecuting their case. From the documents, it transpires that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, is dated 21.07.2025. From the endorsement made in the said copy of the order passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Annexure P/2, it transpires that they applied for a certified copy on 19.01.2026, which was delivered to them on 22.01.2026, and thereafter they filed the revision before the Board of Revenue. In their application filed before the Board of Revenue under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it transpires that the petitioners came to know on 19.01.2026 that an order had already been passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, on 21.07.2025, and thereafter they immediately applied for a certified copy, which was delivered to them on 22.01.2026. Thereafter, they collected the necessary documents for filing the revision and ultimately filed the same. The caste and community of the petitioners, as well as the area in which they are residing, are also relevant factors for considering the explanation for condonation of delay in the present case. The petitioners are claiming that they are less literate persons belonging to a tribal area and residing in a remote place, and they have no regular communication with their counsel; therefore, they could not file their revision within time. This can be considered a plausible explanation for condonation of delay. From a perusal of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, it further transpires that the Board of 5 Revenue has rejected the application by saying that, since the petitioners had not tried to get the status of their case from their counsel, it would amount to their negligence. However, in view of the beneficial legislation relating to condonation of delay, the ground for rejection taken by the Board of Revenue is not sustainable. 7. From the perusal of the entire material produced by the petitioners in the present petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to get their case decided on merits by the Board of Revenue instead of rejection of their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, for deciding the case of the petitioners on merits, and the Board of Revenue shall pass an order on the merits of the case after hearing the parties concerned, in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok