Vikky Agrawal And ANR. v. Union Of India And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 345 of 2015

1. Vikky Agrawal, son of Shri Ganesh Ram Agrawal, aged about 30 years,

2. Deepak Rajput, S/o Shri Govind Rajput, aged about 36 years, Both are resident of Budhwari Bazar Road, Sakti, Tahsil Sakti, Janjgir Champa (CG) ---- Petitioners

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 Tetle, P.H. No.19/15, Tahsil Pusour, District- Raigarh (CG)

9. Sundarlal, son of Munu, aged about 52 years, caste Sanwara, resident of village Tetla, Tahsil Pusour, District-Raigarh (CG) ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

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 petitioners submits that the petitioners have 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 applications of the petitioners have remained pending.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners' grievance is not against

any particular order but only against alleged inaction in deciding their application for mutation. He submits that if any such applications have been moved by the petitioners, 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 petitioners' claim for mutation, this petition is finally disposed of with a direction that the Tahsildar shall decide petitioners' applications for mutation strictly in accordance with law, as early as possible. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen