Sunil Agrawal v. Union Of India And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 349 of 2015 Sunil Agrawal S/o Late Shri Radheshyam Agrawal Aged About 51 years R/o Gandhiganj, Tahsil Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Civil & Revenue District Raigarh ( C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Union Of India Through Secretary Department Of Tribal Affair, Delhi

2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Aadim Jati, Anusuchit Jati, Vikas, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

5. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

6. Tahsildar, Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.)

7. District Registrar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

8. Patwari Of Village Tetla, Tahsil & District Raigarh ( C.G.)

9. Dhaniram, son of late Ballabho, aged about 49 years 10.Gangaram, son of late Shri Balam,aged about 45 caste sanwara, resident of R -9 & 10- Village post Tetla, Tahsil Pusour, District -Raigarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri A.H. Syed, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri R.K.Gupta, Dy. A.G.

For Respondent/Union of India :

Shri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate Order On Board 08/07/2015 Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased land from vendor/respondent, who does not belong to any of the scheduled tribe or caste and therefore, no permission was required under Section 165 (6) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code. After execution of sale deed when application was moved before the Tahsildar, mutation is not being ordered by the Tahsildar. The application of the petitioner has remained pending.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner's grievance is not against any particular order but only against alleged inaction in deciding his application for mutation. He submits that if any such application has been moved by the petitioner, the same would be considered by the competent authority/Tahsildar in accordance with law. Placing on record the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, without commenting upon merits of the petitioner's claim for mutation, this petition is finally disposed of with a direction that the Tahsildar shall decide petitioner's application for mutation strictly in accordance with law, as early as possible. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen