2026:CGHC:4034-DB NAFR INDRAJEET D by ig I i N ta D ll R y A s J ig E n E e T d HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SAHU SAHU Date: 2026.01.24

12:32:03 +0530 WA No. 60 of 2026

1 - Sanjay Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ram Sudeen Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Matpara Near Bilaspur Chowk Ambikapur Tahsil Ambikapur District- Surguja Chhattisgarh District- Surguja ( Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh, ... Appellant versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2 - Commissioner Land Record Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur, Distict- Raipur Chhattisgarh District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, 3 - The Collector Ambikapur District- Surguja Chhattisgarh District- Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh, 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ambikapur District- Surguja Chhattisgarh District- Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh, 5 - Vishnu Das S/o Parwan Das Presently Working As Patwari, Halka Number 27 At Sarkariya Tahsil Lakhanpur District- Ambikapur Chhattisgarh District- Surguja (Ambikapur ) Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

For State : Shri Shashank Thakur, Addl. Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J

Order on Board

23.01.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ .

1 Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties on the application for condonation of delay of 224 days in preferring the instant appeal.

2 The appellant has filed this writ appeal against an order dated

10.03.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, in WPS No.5851 of

2018.

3 On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the appellant as to why he has approached this Court against the impugned order after an inordinate delay of 224 days, he has not offered any plausible explanation or any cogent reason for delay in filing the writ appeal.

4 Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submit that the writ appeal is barred by delay and laches and further there is no cogent reason or explanation has been given in the delay and laches application filed for condonation of delay. Hence, the appeal is not liable to be entertained.

5 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perused the application for condonation of delay in preferring the instant writ appeal.

6 The primary question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the delay of about 224 days in preferring the present writ appeal deserves to be condoned or not.

7 Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary,2024 INSC 932, while considering the delay, issued some directions and observed as follows:-

“5. The legal position is that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the petitioner has to explain the Court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260, it was held by this Court that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. A reference was also made to the decision of this Court in Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 SCC Online 92 wherein, it was held as follows:

"13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows:

“15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on