Kamal Rai v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2493 of 2019 Kamal Rai S/o Late Vivekanand Rai Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Subhasnagar (Bhagwanpur) Police Station Gandhinagar Tahsil - Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Commissioner Surguja Division Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

3. Collector Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

5. Tahsildar Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisarh.

6. Superintendent of Land Record (Correction of error in settlement) Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

7. Sujit Kumar Vishwas S/o Late Sachin Kumar Vishwas Aged About 36 Years

8. Ajit Kumar Vishwas S/o Late Sachin Vishwas Aged About 32 Years

9. Karuna Vishwas D/o Late Sachin Vishwas Aged About 30 Years

10. Sashodhar Mandal S/o Late Jaldhar Mandal Aged About 46 Years

11. Smt. Asha Rai W/o Late Vivekanand Rai Aged About 65 Years R/o

12. Suraj Rai S/o Late Vivekanand Rai Aged About 50 Years

13. Begu Rai S/o Late Balram Mistri Aged About 48 Years

14. Prema Rai S/o Late Balram Mistri Aged About 45 Years

15. Gouri D/o Late Balram Mistri Aged About 42 Years, Respondents No.7 to 15 R/o Village Subhasnagar (Bhagwanpur) Police Station Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents For petitioner- Shri A.N. Pandey, Advocate.

For State- Shri Sudeep Verma, Dy.G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 23/07/2019 Heard.

1.

The order under challenge is dated 24/06/2019 wherein in second appeal the application preferred by the petitioner for stay of the mutation order has been dismissed which was filed under section 52 of the Land Revenue Code.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the mutation proceeding are not stayed, in such case the respondents may execute the sale deed and create third party interest in respect of the subject property. 3.

Order impugned only touches upon the mutation proceeding. The petitioner by the prayer seeks injunction against intended alienation. Then the proper remedy is to file civil suit and seek relief for it. The revenue proceeding are meant for the limited purpose and even it is settled proposition that mutation of the name is made in revenue records it would not confer any title as the title has to be eventually decided by the civil court. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the order. 4.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. However, the Commissioner is directed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE gouri