JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This writ appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 08/10/2021 passed by learned Single Judge in WP227 No. 632/2015 (M/s Krishna Builders and Developers v. Shiv Narayan Jaiswal (died) through LRs. & Ors.) whereby revisional order dated 03/07/2015 passed by the Board of Revenue has been set aside and the order dated 02/07/2012 passed by the Collector, Raigarh has been confirmed.

2. The challenge in the present appeal has been made on the following factual backdrop :-

2.1. Appellant's father Late Shiv Narayan Jaiswal sold 1.36 acres of land by way of registered sale deed dated 21/04/2004 in favour of respondent No. 1 firm and thereafter, the name of the said firm was duly mutated in the revenue records and since the said piece of land was agricultural land, for the purpose of plotting and for commercial use, the same was required to be diverted under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Code”). An application for diversion was made by the respondent No. 1 firm, before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raigarh and the same was registered as Revenue Case No. 244/A-2/2003-04 and vide order dated 07/06/2004, the said application for diversion was allowed and it is the case of respondent No. 1 herein (writ petitioner) that appellant's land was also diverted.

2.2. Thereafter, appellant's father Late Shiv Narayan Jaiswal and his family members also executed a number of sale deeds in favour of different persons on 30/11/2004 and received sale considerations as per diverted land. On 30/11/2004, appellant's father also executed an affidavit admitting to the passing of diversion order.

2.3. Ultimately, on 29/10/2010, appellant's father filed an application before the Sub-divisional Officer, Raigarh for review of diversion order dated 07/06/2004 alleging that his signature has been forged on the application of diversion and his statement has been recorded by impersonating a third person as him and therefore, the diversion order is illegal. However, the said application was rejected by the Sub-divisional Officer as time-barred vide order dated 24/11/2011 holding that the said application was filed after lapse of about six years from the date of diversion order and no such sufficient cause has been shown for filing the application with a delay of six years.

2.4. Thereafter, appellant's father preferred an appeal before the Collector, Raigarh questioning the order dated 24/11/2011 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer but it was also rejected vide order dated 02/07/2012 against which revision petition was preferred by him before the Board of Revenue and vide order dated 03/07/2015, the Board of Revenue allowed the revision petition and set aside the orders passed by the Collector, Raigarh and the Sub-divisional Officer, Raigarh and also condoned the delay of 6 years in filing the review application.

2.5. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the Board of Revenue, respondent No. 1 firm preferred writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court bearing No. WP227/632/2015 whereby preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent No. 1/appellant herein that the writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable and writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would lie in light of the decision rendered by this Court (Single Bench) in the matter of Dr. Ram Sharan Lal Tripathi v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2015 SCC Online Chh 1521 : AIR 2016 Chh 17 and on merits, it was also contended that the delay of six years in filing the review application has rightly been condoned by the Board of Revenue taking a liberal view of the matter in light of various decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in which it has been held that sufficient cause has to be construed liberally.

2.6. By impugned order dated 08/10/2021, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that th