Disposed

Mahamaya Agro Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Jul 2019WPC/2151/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ protection regarding deletion of their name from revenue records after mutation. Court directed SDO to decide pending appeal under Section 44(1) of C.G. Land Revenue Code within six months. Petition disposed of with instructions.

What did the court decide?

Directed SDO to decide the pending appeal under Section 44(1) of C.G. Land Revenue Code within six months.

Mahamaya Agro Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶2

WPC No. 2151 of 2019

¶3

Mahamaya Agro Exim Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Driector, Rajkumar Dammani, Age About 55 Years, S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Dammani, R/o Ramsagar Para, Ward No. 17, Samta Colony, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶4

---- Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, Village - Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶7

The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Tahsildar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For petitioner – Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate. For State-Shri Sudeep Verma, Dy.G.A.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order

¶13

01/07/2019

¶14

Heard.

¶15

The instant petition is filed only with a prayer that the petitioner had purchased certain land bearing khasra No.63/2 at Ramsagar Para, Ward No.17, Raipur by a registered sale deed dated 12/07/2012. Subsequently, name of Mahamaya Agro Exim, Pvt. Ltd. was mutated in the revenue record. However, only on an internal communication in between the Municipal Corporation and the State, name of the petitioner has been deleted from the revenue record.

¶16

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner therefore has filed an appeal before the SDO under section 44 (1) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code and despite the fact that six months have already passed same is

¶17

not decided.

¶18

After perusal of the record, it appears that appeal was filed in the month of January, 2019 and order of the SDO shows that case could not be decided for certain records. Be that as it may, considering the nature of the dispute inter-se, it is directed that SDO shall make all endeavour to decide the case as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶19

With such observation, the petition stands disposed of.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

(Goutam Bhaduri)

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

gouri

Mahamaya Agro Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahamaya Agro Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jain and Brothers, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Banshi Sonkar Vs Government of India

Sitaram Vs Government of India

Pawan Sai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Balram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sati Sakti Mahila Swa Sahayata samuh Samiti Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.