SUDAMA CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF CG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 22-11 -2005, passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur in Second Appeal Case No. 13/A/6/2005-06 setting aside the order of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur dated 05-11 -2004 and directing to enter the name of sixth respondent herein in the revenue records in respect of the property bearing Khasra No. 154/4, Area 0.200 hectare situated at P.C. No. 104, R.I. Circle Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter shortly referred to as 'the Schedule land').

(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of mutation proceedings initiated by the statutory authority under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Court, 1959 (for short the 'Code').

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material papers appended to the writ petition. It was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tahsildar Committed an apparent irregularity in entertaining the application of the sixth respondent and that application was not at all maintainable by virtue of provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules regarding records of rights (for short the 'Rules'). It was also contended that if the sixth respondent is aggrieved by the entry made by the Tahsildar civil Court and sought remedies. It was also contended that mutating the name of the sixth respondent in the revenue records without setting aside the entry made in the name of the petitioner in pursuance of intimations filed by him would not arise and admittedly, the sixth respondent did not file any application to set aside the entry made in the name of the petitioner in the revenue records.