1 CGHC010315732026 2026:CGHC:37272 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4341 of 2026 1 - Bindulal Son Of Anand Ram, Aged About 58 Years Caste Satnami, Resident Of Village Harnadadar, Patwari Halka No. 118/65, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. C.P. Lahrey, Advocate For State :- Dr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20.08.2026 1. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2024 (annexure P-1) passed by the Learned Commissioner Raipur Division Raipur Chhattisgarh arising out of the order dated 26.05.2008 (annexure P-2) passed by the VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 learned Collector Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted the subject land as Bhumiswami on the basis of his status as a landless person and has been in peaceful possession thereof for the last several decades. It is submitted that the Commissioner has erred in rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently dismissing the revision on the ground of delay, without considering the case of the petitioner on merits. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 26.02.2024 be set aside. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the Commissioner has rightly considered the application for condonation of delay and, finding the explanation offered by the petitioner to be unsatisfactory, has dismissed the revision as being hopelessly barred by limitation. It is submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the revision preferred by the petitioner before the learned Commissioner was dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay. 3 The proceedings were initiated after a delay of about 14 years. The learned Commissioner considered the explanation furnished by the petitioner for such delay and found the same to be insufficient. 6. The question as to whether the explanation furnished for such an extraordinary delay constitutes sufficient cause is essentially a matter for consideration by the competent authority. In the present case, the view taken by the learned Commissioner cannot be said to be so unreasonable or perverse as to warrant interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 7. It is well settled that mere availability of another possible view is not sufficient for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the competent authority has exercised its discretion on the question of limitation on the basis of the material available before it. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha