1 CGHC010330602026 2026:CGHC:38526 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1106 of 2026 Shriram Maravi S/o Tijau Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Malakchhari, Tehsil Lormi, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Hetram Rathore S/o Radhelal Rathore Aged About 67 Years Caste Rajput, R/o Ward No. 12, Kundrapara, Lormi, Tehsil Lormi, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kapil Singh S/o Dharmu Singh Aged About 40 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Malakchhari, Tehsil Lormi, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A. For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 31/08/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 06.08.2026 SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.09.02 17:29:54 +0530 2 passed by Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Appeal Case No. A/25/R/A-21(2)/16/2026, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has not been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 165(6) of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Collector, Mungeli, which has been dismissed vide order dated 13.03.2024, against which he preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 07.04.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Board of Revenue by filing the second appeal against the order dated 16.12.2025 and order dated 07.04.2026 which is the order passed in review petition. Due to inadvertence, the petitioner could not file any application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay as he was under impression that the limitation would start from the date of passing of the order in review petition, that is on 07.04.2026. The Board of Revenue has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that no application for condonation of delay has been filed. He would further submit that the non-filing of the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is a curable defect and the Board of Revenue is required to grant time to file the requisite application but instead of granting time, they have dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by 3 the Board of Revenue. He would further submit that the matter pertains to the grant of permission to purchase the land of aboriginal tribe, which requires adjudication on merits and the respondent No. 2 and 3, who are the seller of the land, have no objection. Therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the Board of Revenue for adjudication on its own merits. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that without there being any application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay, the Board has passed the order, which is strictly in accordance with law, needs no interference. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3 supported the petitioner and submits that the matter may be reconsidered by the Board of Revenue. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document annexed with the petition. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the relevant documents available on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner, before the Board of Revenue, had challenged both the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in the first appeal and the subsequent order dated 07.04.2026 passed by the same authority in the review petition. From a perusal of the appeal memo (Annexure P-5), it is evident that both the aforesaid orders were specifically assailed before the Board of Revenue. The Board of 4 Revenue, however, proceeded on the premise that no application for condonation of delay had been filed along with the appeal and, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to cure the said defect, dismissed the appeal. Even assuming that the limitation for challenging the original order dated 16.12.2025 had expired and that an application for condonation of delay was necessary, the defect was curable and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the order was passed in the review application on 07.04.2026, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity to file an appropriate application explaining the delay. The approach adopted by the Board of Revenue, resulting in dismissal of the appeal without granting such opportunity, has occasioned failure of justice. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 06.08.2026 suffers from material irregularity and jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.08.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue is hereby set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Board of Revenue for consideration of the appeal afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be at liberty to cure the defect by filing an appropriate application seeking condonation of delay, if so advised. In the event such an application is filed, the Board of Revenue shall consider and decide the same on its own merits, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, and thereafter proceed with the appeal in accordance with law. 5 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit