V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.04.16

2026:CGHC:17104-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 301 of 2026 Nilesh Kumar S/o Hemdas Bandhe Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Temari, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - The Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Circuit Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2 - Commissioner Durg Division, District Durg, (C.G.)

3 - Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.)

4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.)

5 - Tahsildar Berla, District Bemetara, (C.G.)

6 - Santosh Kumar S/o Tilkudas Chaturvedi R/o Village Temari, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, (C.G.)

7 - Ranjit Sonkar S/o Hemant Sonkar R/o Village Temari, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

8 - Chandraprakash Patre S/o Ramkumar Patre R/o Village Temari, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

9 - Jayram Yadav S/o Rajaram Yadav R/o Village Temari, Tahsil Berla, District-

Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

10 - Pradeep Kumar S/o Bhuruwa Satnami R/o Village Temari, Tahsil Berla, District Chhattisgarh

11 - Thakurram S/o Prabhudas Satnami R/o Village Temari, Tahsil Berla, District Chhattisgarh Bemetara, Berla, District Chhattisgarh

12 - Bhanupratap S/o Bhagwati Satnami R/o Village Temari, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.)

13 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through In-Charge Of Police Station- Berla, District-

Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant : Ms Pratibha Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Prasun Bhaduri, Dy AG ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Order on Board

Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice

15.04.2026 Heard Ms Pratibha Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri Prasun Bhaduri, learned Dy AG, appearing for the respondent/State.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No. 1 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 44 days in preferring the instant appeal. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against an order dated 25.11.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, in WPS No. 509 of 2023 (Nilesh Kumar Vs The Board of Revenue CG and others), by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner.

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 dated 25.11.2025, after an inordinate delay of 44 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 respondent/State would 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 44 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 thou