GHUNESHWAR Vs. RAIGARH IRON INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is against the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby interference was declined in view of the turn of events, particularly, as to the passing of final order by the Tahsildar enabling mutation in favour of the 1st Respondent, which could be challenged by way of appeal. The dispute raised was with regard to non-consideration of the preliminary objection by the Tahsildar with reference to Section 165 of the Land Revenue Code (for short, 'the LRC'), which, earlier, was left to be decided at the time of final hearing.

(2.) The sequence of events is as follows :

(3.) The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the property involved herein was purchased by the Appellant way back in the year 1981. Though the property was comprised in scheduled area, according to the Appellant, it being an agricultural land, no prior permission of the Collector in terms of Section 165 of the LRC was necessary. Later, it was found that the property was caused to be sold by the LRs of the erstwhile owner to the 1st Respondent herein, as per the sale deed executed on 20.10.2004, pursuant to which an application was filed for mutation by the purchaser before the Naib Tahsildar. On coming to know about the same, the Appellant raised an objection that the property actually belonged to the Appellant and no mutation could be affected, as no title had passed on to the 1st Respondent / purchaser. It was pointed out that no permission of the District Collector was necessary, in terms of Section 165 of the LRC, as the property concerned was an agricultural land situated in a scheduled area. The said question, though was insisted to be decided as a preliminary issue, it was not acceded to by the Tahsildar who held as per order dated 23.08.2006 that, it may be considered at the time of final hearing. Met with the situation, the Appellant moved the appellate authority by filing necessary proceedings and after hearing, the order passed by the Tahsildar was set aside and a verdict was passed in favour of the Appellant. This was sought to be challenged by filing necessary proceedings by the 1st Respondent herein before the Commissioner. After analyzing the facts and figures, the Commissioner came to a finding that the Collector was not correct in turning the position upside down and accordingly, the order passed by the District Collector was set aside and the order of the Naib Tahsildar was restored, which is virtually to the effect that the point raised by the Appellant as to the applicability of Section 165 of the LRC could be decided at the time of final hearing in the proceedings pending before the Tahsildar.