BENA BAI Vs. LEELAM CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by upholding the order of the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure P-6). By such order in revision, the order of the Commissioner was affirmed to hold that appeal was barred by time.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners No. 1 to 6 would submit that the petitioners were joint owners/co-sharers of certain land bearing plot No.27/1 recorded in Sheet No. 29 D, they were the lessee of the said plot. The said land was held in joint ownership and few of the co-sharers had sold the land on 25.05.2011 by three separate sale deeds in favour of the respondents. He would further submit that on the basis of said sale deed the Nazul Officer by order dated 05.12.2011 (Annexure P-2) mutated the name of the respondents without individual notice to the present petitioners who were the co-sharer. The said order was passed on 05.12.2011 (Annexure P-2). He would further submit that the said order was subject of challenge before the Additional Collector under Section 44 (1) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code, 1959') along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. It is further contended that the existence of the said order came into knowledge of the petitioners as late as when in a proceeding in Second Appeal before the High Court, certain documents were filed and the information of purchase of subject land was communicated to the petitioners through their counsel on 22.08.2013. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for the certified copy of the order on 26.09.2013 which was received on 03.10.2013 and eventually the appeal was filed on 05.10.2013. Therefore, from the date of knowledge within the period of limitation, immediately the appeal was preferred. The appellate Court by its order dated 31.05.2014 (Annexure P-5) condoned the delay and remitted back the case to the Nazul Officer for fresh adjudication. He would further submit that the said order was challenged by the purchaser/respondents herein before the Commissioner and the Commissioner by its order dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure P-6) has set aside the order of the Additional Collector whereby the delay was condoned. The said order was further subject of challenge before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by its order dated 27.04.2016 (Annexure P-1) has affirmed the order of the Commissioner.