@ MIGH COURT OF JUDICATURECHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR A' Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ PETmONER RESPONDENTS Writ PetitonNo.6132 OF 2006 Maharishi Ram Lochan Das Piplayan, aged 70 yeare, resident bf Guru Shri Shn' 108 Shanker Das, resident of Sicklha Ashram Amrawsiti, Amanala Gram Panchayat, Thadha Pattira, Post Office Paksmya, Tehsil Pendra.District Bilaspur(Chhatfi^arh) Versus 1. State of Chhaffisgarh, ttirough the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secr®tariat,Raipur 2. TheDistrictColl®dor,Bilaspur(C.G.) 3. TheTehsildar, Pehdra, DlstrictBilaspur 4. TheGonsenratorofForest.Bilaspurcirele, Bilaspur Present Mr. Somnath Verma, leamed counsel forthe Petttioner. Mr. ParagKotecha, leamed Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 13 of December2005) ir'ii !nTqi|:lliiiii73i^ The petitioner has averred that Shriman Chief Sahib of the Pendra Jamindari Shri Lal Amol SinghSahib gave a piece of land admeasurlng about 41 acres on 01-11-19^. That was followed by an order of transfer of land issued bytheoffice of fte Chief Sahib Pendra Estate. Itis stated ttiat the pieUConer submUted his representation / applicaUon on 17-04-1965 and another representationon01-05-1965 torespondent No.Sand other responderrtsalsoformutatihgentriesintherecordsofrightsoftliesubject land. ltisstatedthatthepetitipner(rantedtosubmitehisre|M-esentafl6n/ ^l^^>^'^&;^ff=^44^T4rt-lf^ii^^^s;s "i :i^';''^ p— -a.- application to the 3r<^ respondentandotherresponderrtson 17-04-1965 and 01-05-1966 for Correction of the land records in the name of the petitjoner,but,the respondents refused to recehfe the applicatioris vwthout assigning any reason. It is also stated that even after th®year1^%, he has been making representations/applications to the respondents, but, they refused to correct the entries. It was also stated that since ttie respondent refused to receiveapplications/representations, subsequently, the petitioner submitted his applications by registered post acknowledgment due. The 3rd respondent vrtio is empowered to make entries in the records of rights ofthe subject land is duty bound to receh/e application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with taw and he cannot refuse to receive application nor squat on such application for decades. Leamed Panel Lawyer for the State would contend that there is no evidence placed before the Court to show that after 1966, the petitioner made any application to the 3 respondent or olher respondents. It was pointed out by the leamed Panal Layer that even copies of these applications made in the year 1965-66 are not appended to the petition. Bethatas itmay, I thinkthat theends of Justice would be metby permitUng the petitioner to mate fresh application to the3"1 respondent to mutate entries in the revenue records wiUi regard to the subject land and directing the 3rd respondent to dlspose of the same within a time-frdme. In that view of the matter, t dispose of the writ petifoner permitUng the petltioner to make a representation/applicaUon to the Tahsjldar withtn a pertod of one montft from today seeking mutation of entries ih the records of rights ofsubject lanciand ifsueh an applieation/representation isfilecl by || ;!:;fT11i|;l!^l!|i Ti.7.7. .-M ;?!i ^•!t;.ritfEteit-.'s>8a;.s-'»^8s^^^^^ thepetitioner within the sBpulated time, the 3 respondent is diracted to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law wrthin a period of 3 months from ttie date ofreceipt of such appllcatton/representetion. The parties shall bear tfieir respective costs in thiswrit petition. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sv*.)es^ [~