High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/3266/2008withdrawn

Vinod Paikra v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Others

2015-08-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3266 of 2008

1. Vinod Paikra S/O Shri Nathu Ram Paikra, R/O Village-Bishunpur, P.S. & Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG)

2. The Collector Sarguja, District - Sarguja (C.G.)

3. Smt. Chandana Sanjay Tripathi Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.)

4. The Sub-Divisional Officer Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner.

Ms. Pragya Pandey, Advocate under the authority of Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 to 3 Mr. Arun Sao, Government Advocate For Respondent No.4 Mr. J.P. Shukla, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker ORDER ON BOARD 21/08/2015

1. Challenge in this petition is to the orders dated 9.12.2004 & 11.2.2008 passed by the respondent No.2 based on which the Sub Divisional Officer, Ambikapur has denied issuance of Form No.16 to the petitioner for the sale of his land. The petitioner has also challenged the restrictions put by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ambikapur in respect of appearance of the lawyers in certain nature of revenue cases.

2. This writ petition was lastly heard on 17.8.2015 and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State sought time to seek instructions from the respondents No.1 to 3 as to whether any such restriction is still in existence or not.

3. Counsel for the State, on instructions, submits that the notice (Annexure P-2) was affixed by the then Sub Divisional Officer, Ambikapur but as on date there is no such restriction for the lawyers to appear in the revenue cases. He further submits that the direction relating to non-issuance of Form No.16 for the sale of land has also been withdrawn and now the petitioner may make an application for grant of permission to sell his property and if he fulfils the formalities, as presently required, the appropriate order on his application would be passed in accordance with law.

4. In view of the above submissions, counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this petition with liberty to do the needful.

5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdraw with the aforesaid liberty. Sd/- (Pritinker Diwaker) J U D G E roshan/-