Chhattisgarh HC Restores Raipur Residents’ Revenue-Map Appeal, Accepting 32-Day Delay After They Expected Collector’s Order To Be Communicated

The petitioners challenged the Collector’s order dated 24 July 2023 rejecting their application to correct a revenue map.

They appealed under Section 44 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 32-day delay.

They said they believed the Collector’s order would be communicated to them and learned of it during visits to the Collector’s Court on 11, 12 and 13 October 2023; they then obtained a certified copy and filed the appeal.

The Commissioner rejected the condonation application and dismissed the appeal as time-barred on 19 December 2023.

The Board of Revenue dismissed their revision on 9 April 2024.

The petitioners sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires a party seeking condonation to demonstrate “sufficient cause.”

The provision is to be construed and applied liberally, pragmatically and in a justice-oriented manner to advance substantial justice; however, a liberal approach does not mean that delay must invariably be condoned.

The Court relied on Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs. v. Karnataka Housing Board and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, which restated these principles.

The appeal was brought under Section 44 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, and the High Court considered the challenged orders in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court found the petitioners’ account—that they expected the order to be communicated, learned of it on visiting the Collector’s Court, and then sought a certified copy and appealed—plausible and not indicative of deliberate inaction, negligence or mala fides.

In its view, the authorities had rejected that explanation too technically by focusing on the petitioners’ failure to inquire earlier.

Applying the justice-oriented approach under Section 5, and considering that the delay was only 32 days, the Court held that the explanation amounted to sufficient cause.

It set aside the Commissioner’s order dated 19 December 2023 and the Board of Revenue’s order dated 9 April 2024, condoned the delay, and directed the Commissioner to restore the appeal to its original file and number and decide it on the merits, after giving the parties an opportunity to be heard.

The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.