← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/2193/2015disposed off

Roshni Steels And Power Limited v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-02-26Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2193 of 2015

1. Roshni Steels And Power Limited Through The Director Mahendra Goynaka, Duly Registered As Company Under Provisions Of Companies Act 1956, Registered Office At Telghani Naka, Station Road, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Dilip Tiwari, S/o Shriram Sajeevan Tiwari, Aged About 43 Years Village Dhangaon, Post Office Andhiyarkhor, Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Collector, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Additional Collector, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. The Registrar, Registration Office Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents Shri Prateek Sharma, counsel for the petitioner/s. Shri B.Gopa Kumar, Dy.A.G. for the State / respondents. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 26/02/2016 Short grievance of the petitioners ventilated through this petition is that the Registration Authority is not registering the sale of petitioners' land to 3 rd party and a ban has been imposed vide Annexure P/1. 2.

In the return of the respondents, it has been categorically stated in para 3 that pursuant to sale deed (Annexure P/2), mutation has taken place in the revenue records in the name of the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners have all the right in context of the said land including the right of selling the same. It has also been stated in the return that the office memorandum

(Annexure P/1) would not be an impediment in any way with regard to the land in question which have been reverted back. Lastly, it has been clarified in the return that the petition has been filed on apprehension. 3.

The above stand taken by the respondents clearly shows that order dated 25/04/2015 would not come in the way of registration of sale deed. 4.

In view of the return of the respondents, nothing survives in this petition. The petition is accordingly finally disposed off. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Deepti