ORDER :

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.

4. He would further submit that the finding recorded by the Additional Collector would show that the petitioners were not noticed about the date of order as it bears only signature of Tarachand Jain, the purchaser. Therefore, when the fact of purchase came to notice of petitioners incidentally proceeding in a Second Appeal the measures to file appeal was taken. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the petitioners have the knowledge unless it was communicated by the counsel. He would further submit that under the circumstances, such finding of fact on the vague ground by the Commissioner is void ab initio and cannot be acted upon and the order which is affirmed by the Board of Revenue accordingly is required to be set aside. He placed his reliance in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Versus Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others {(2013) 12 SCC 649} and would submit that applying the principles as laid down by the Supreme Court, the mutation proceedings are required to be heard again by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner No.7 would submit that he has sold the property and he has been made a petitioner, whereas he should have been arrayed as respondent and he supports the order of the Board of Revenue.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the order of the Commissioner would show that in a proceeding in second appeal, wherein the petitioners were also p