Pramod Kumar Jain vs State Of Chhattisgarh 12 Wpc/227/2018 ... on 29 January, 2018

[Cites 0, Cited by 33]

Chattisgarh High Court

Pramod Kumar Jain vs State Of Chhattisgarh 12 Wpc/227/2018 ... on 29 January, 2018

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                           1

                                                                                NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          Writ Petition (C) No. 209 of 2018

        Pramod Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Hazari Lal Jain, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
        Bhainsthan Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District :
        Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                         ---- Petitioner

                                        Versus

     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And
        Disaster, Management, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District-
        Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

     2. Director, Directorate Of Town And Country Planning, Indrawati Bhawan,
        Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

     3. The Naib- Tahsildar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                       ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Dilman Rathi Minj, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 29/01/18

1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.2017 (Annexure - P/1) passed by respondent No. 3 - Naib Tahsildar, Raipur rejecting the application for mutation of land in the name of petitioner.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner would submit that the impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law as the same has been passed without any authority or jurisdiction of law.

3. At this stage learned State counsel would submit that the impugned order is appealable before the Appellate Authority under Section 44 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Since the order rejecting the application for mutation of land in the name of petitioner is appealable before the Appellate Authority under Section 44 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court