Board of Revenue directed to adjudicate application for condonation of delay and revenue revision on merits.

The petitioner is the Sarwarakar of Shankar Murti Mandir, a temple allegedly constructed by his grandfather on ancestral land

The petitioner challenged a series of revenue orders, beginning with a Nayab Tahsildar’s order dated 22.12.2014, which recorded the Collector as "Manager" of the temple in the revenue records

This order was upheld by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Navagarh) and the Additional Commissioner (Durg)

Subsequently, the Board of Revenue dismissed the petitioner’s revision petition on 10.12.2019 solely on the grounds of limitation

During the pendency of the writ, the petitioner filed a fresh application for condonation of delay and a revised application before the Board of Revenue

1. Whether the Board of Revenue was justified in dismissing the revision petition on the technical ground of limitation without addressing the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the private nature of the temple

2. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to pursue his remedies before the Board of Revenue following the filing of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

The court addressed the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the condonation of delay upon showing sufficient cause

It emphasized the settled principle requiring a liberal consideration in matters of condonation of delay to ensure that substantive justice is not defeated by technicalities

The court also acknowledged the administrative and quasi-judicial hierarchy under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, governing the recording of names and management of religious properties in revenue records

The petitioner contended that the temple was a private entity managed exclusively by his family, and the inclusion of the Collector as a "Manager" was an arbitrary interference with private property rights

The High Court noted that the Board of Revenue had not adjudicated upon these merits but had dismissed the case on a procedural delay

Since the petitioner had already initiated a fresh application before the Board of Revenue—supported by an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act—the High Court found it unnecessary to adjudicate the merits of the property claim at this stage

By obtaining the State’s "no objection," the Court pivoted the resolution back to the specialized revenue forum to ensure a merits-based determination

It granted the petitioner liberty to pursue the remedy already availed before the Board of Revenue

The Court directed the Board of Revenue to consider and decide the application for condonation of delay and the underlying merits of the revision strictly in accordance with the law and as expeditiously as possible