MAHETTAR RAM SAHU vs BOARD OF REVENUE BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH CIRCUIT COURT RAIPUR

Digitally
signed by
YOGESH
TIWARI
Date:
2026.10.30
18:30:57
+0530
YOGESH
TIWARI
1

CGHC010274692024 2026:CGHC:45996
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4114 of 2024
1 - Mahettar Ram Sahu S/o Lt. Mannu Lal Sahu Aged About 68 Years
R/o Village Doonda, Old Dhamtari Road, P/s Mujgahan, Tehsil And
District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Fudru Sahu S/o Lt. Mannu Lal Sahu Aged About 63 Years R/o
Village Doonda, Old Dhamtari Road, P/s Mujgahan, Tehsil And District
Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Roopchand Sahu S/o Lt. Mannu Lal Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o
Village Doonda, Old Dhamtari Road, P/s Mujgahan, Tehsil And District
Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Smt. Munni Bai @ Rajkumari Sahu D/o Lt. Mannu Lal Sahu Aged
About 56 Years R/o Village Doonda, Old Dhamtari Road, P/s Mujgahan,
Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.)
5 - Yogesh Kumar Sahu S/o Lt. Munna Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o
Village Doonda, Old Dhamtari Road, P/s Mujgahan, Tehsil And District
Raipur (C.G.)
6 - Rohit Kumar Sahu S/o Lt. Munna Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o
Village Doonda, Old Dhamtari Road, P/s Mujgahan, Tehsil And District
Raipur (C.G.)
7 - Gopi Kumar Sahu S/o S/o Lt. Munna Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o
Village Doonda, Old Dhamtari Road, P/s Mujgahan, Tehsil And District
Raipur (C.G.)
8 - Smt. Shahina Bai @ Sohin Sahu W/o Lt. Munna Lal Sahu Aged
About 56 Years R/o Village Doonda, Old Dhamtari Road, P/s Mujgahan,
Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.)

2
9 - Sundar Lal Sahu S/o Lt. Gannu Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o
Village Doonda, Old Dhamtari Road, P/s Mujgahan, Tehsil And District
Raipur (C.G.)
10 - Maniram Sahu S/o Lt. Gannu Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o
Village Doonda, Old Dhamtari Road, P/s Mujgahan, Tehsil And District
Raipur (C.G.)
11 - Smt. Deva Bai @ Devbati Sahu W/o Lt. Gannu Sahu Aged About
73 Years R/o Village Doonda, Old Dhamtari Road, P/s Mujgahan, Tehsil
And District Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioners
versus
1 - Board Of Revenue Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Circuit Court Raipur
Through President, At - Near Raj Bhawan, G.E. Road, Raipur, (C.G.)
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raipur, At - Collectorate
Parisar, Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate (through VC)
For State : Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Order on Board
30.10.2026
1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioners assail the order
dated 09.04.2024 passed by respondent No. 1/Board of Revenue
in Revenue Case No. RN/14/R-A-6/65/2024, whereby the revision
preferred against the order passed by the Commissioner, Raipur
Division, rejecting their appeal as barred by limitation, has been
dismissed. The petitioners have prayed for following relief(s) :-
“ 1. The Court may kindly be pleased to pass
appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and quash the

3
order of P/1 dated 09.04.2024 and restore the
first appeal filed u/s 44 of the CG LRC before
the Court of the concerned Commissioner in
the interest of justice.
2. Any other relief/direction that the Court may
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case. ”
2. Mr. Vinay Nagdev, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners had preferred an appeal under Section 44 of the
Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code against the order dated
24.07.2023 passed by the Collector, Raipur, rejecting their
application for correction of the revenue map in respect of the
subject property situated at Village Dunda, Tehsil and District
Raipur. However, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the
ground that it was barred by limitation by 32 days and that no
plausible explanation had been furnished for the delay. Learned
counsel further submits that, against the said order, the petitioners
preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was also
dismissed vide the impugned order dated 09.04.2024, holding that
the delay of 32 days had not been satisfactorily explained.
3. It is further submitted by Mr. Nagdev that the delay in filing the
appeal was neither deliberate nor mala fide but had occurred due
to bona fide circumstances. After the matter was reserved for
consideration by the Collector, the petitioners were under the
impression that the order would be duly communicated to them, as
assured by the concerned court staff. It was only when they visited

4
the Collector's Court in October 2023 that they came to know of
the order dated 24.07.2023, whereupon they immediately applied
for a certified copy and, after obtaining the same, preferred the
appeal. Learned counsel contends that the authorities below failed
to appreciate these circumstances and adopted an overly
technical approach instead of adopting a justice-oriented approach
to determine whether sufficient cause existed for condoning the
delay, thereby depriving the petitioners of an opportunity to have
their appeal adjudicated on merits.
4. Per contra, Mr. Amit Nayak, learned State counsel opposes the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and
submits that the Commissioner, Raipur Division, after considering
the application for condonation of delay and the explanation
furnished by the petitioners, has rightly dismissed the appeal as
barred by limitation. It is contended that the petitioners themselves
were parties to the proceedings before the Collector and,
therefore, it was incumbent upon them to remain vigilant and keep
track of the proceedings. Merely contending that they were
unaware of the order dated 24.07.2023 and came to know about
the same only upon visiting the Collector's Court in October 2023
cannot constitute a sufficient explanation for the delay in preferring
the appeal. The petitioners have also failed to satisfactorily explain
as to why they did not make any inquiry regarding the outcome of
the proceedings for such a considerable period. It is further
submitted by Mr. Sharma that the Board of Revenue, while

5
exercising revisional jurisdiction, has duly considered the
explanation furnished by the petitioners and found that the delay
of 32 days in preferring the appeal was not satisfactorily
explained. He further submits that the requirement of furnishing
sufficient cause for condonation of delay cannot be dispensed with
merely on the ground that the petitioners seek adjudication of their
appeal on merits. Since the authorities below have passed their
respective orders after considering the material available on
record and no illegality or jurisdictional error is demonstrated
therein, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the material available on record, it is apparent that the petitioners
had preferred an appeal under Section 44 of the Chhattisgarh
Land Revenue Code against the order dated 24.07.2023 passed
by the Additional Collector, Raipur, along with an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 32
days in filing the appeal. The petitioners had assigned reasons for
the delay, stating that after the matter was reserved for
consideration by the Collector, they were under the bona fide
impression that the order would be communicated to them. It was
only upon visiting the Collector's Court on 11.10.2023, 12.10.2023
and 13.10.2023 that they came to know about the order dated

6
24.07.2023, whereupon they immediately applied for a certified
copy and, after obtaining the same, preferred the appeal.
However, the learned Commissioner, vide order dated 19.12.2023,
rejected the application for condonation of delay, holding that the
explanation furnished by the petitioners was not satisfactory and
consequently dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The
said order was thereafter assailed before the Board of Revenue by
way of revision, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated
09.04.2024, substantially reiterating the reasoning assigned by the
Commissioner and holding that the petitioners had failed to
satisfactorily explain the delay of 32 days.
6. Having examined the impugned orders, this Court finds that the
approach adopted by the authorities below is unduly technical and
does not advance the cause of substantial justice. The explanation
furnished by the petitioners for the delay could not have been
discarded merely on the ground that they ought to have made
inquiries regarding the status of the proceedings earlier.
7. It is well settled that the expression 'sufficient cause' under Section
5 of the Limitation Act is required to be construed in a pragmatic
and justice-oriented manner and not by adopting a pedantic
approach. The requirement that every day's delay must be
explained does not mean that the Court should insist upon an
elaborate explanation for each day's delay in a mechanical
manner.

7
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Shivamma (Dead)
by Lrs. v. Karnataka Housing Board and Others, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1969 , while considering the principles governing
condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has
reiterated that such applications are required to be considered
with a liberal, lenient and justice-oriented approach so as to
advance substantial justice between the parties. At the same time,
the Court has clarified that a liberal approach does not dispense
with the statutory requirement of demonstrating sufficient cause for
the delay. The relevant observations made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in paragraph 138 are reproduced hereinbelow:-
“ 138. When a Court of Law deals with an
application to condone the delay filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, such
application will have to be generally viewed in
a liberal and lenient way to do substantial
justice between the parties. Section 5 of the
Limitation Act must be liberally construed and
applied so as to advance substantial justice. It
is undoubtedly true that a justice oriented
approach is necessary while deciding
application under Section 5 of Limitation.
However, it cannot be said that in every case
delay must necessarily be condoned. It is a
condition precedent for Section 5 of the
Limitation Act that there must be a sufficient
reason for condoning the delay. ”
9. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivamma
(supra) , it is quite vivid that the petitioners have furnished a
plausible explanation for the delay of 32 days in preferring the

8
statutory appeal. Their explanation is that, after the matter was
reserved for orders, they were under a bona fide impression that
the order passed by the Collector would be duly communicated to
them and it was only upon visiting the Collector's Court on
11.10.2023, 12.10.2023 and 13.10.2023 that they acquired
knowledge of the order dated 24.07.2023. Thereafter, they took
steps to obtain a certified copy and preferred the appeal. The
explanation so furnished does not reflect any deliberate inaction,
negligence or mala fide intention on the part of the petitioners to
delay the proceedings. Furthermore, the delay involved is merely
32 days. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the explanation furnished by the petitioners
constitutes sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act and that the application for condonation of delay
ought to have been considered in a pragmatic and justice-oriented
manner, rather than adopting an unduly technical approach.
10. The object of the provision is to enable the Courts and quasi-
judicial authorities to adjudicate disputes on merits rather than
non-suit a litigant on technical grounds. In the present case, the
delay is only 32 days, and the petitioners have furnished an
explanation which, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable or indicative of any
deliberate or mala fide conduct. The authorities below ought to
have adopted a pragmatic approach and considered the
application for condonation of delay keeping in view the fact that

9
refusal to condone such delay would deprive the petitioners of an
opportunity to have their statutory appeal adjudicated on merits. In
the considered opinion of this Court, the explanation furnished by
the petitioners constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of the
delay.
11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the view that the orders dated 19.12.2023 passed by
the Commissioner, Raipur Division, and 09.04.2024 passed by the
Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, cannot be sustained
and are hereby set aside. Consequently, the delay of 32 days in
preferring the appeal before the Commissioner is hereby
condoned. The Commissioner, Raipur Division, is directed to
restore the appeal to its original file and number and proceed to
decide the same on its own merits, in accordance with law, after
affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh