2025:JHHC:20676 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.2146 of 2025 Gayasur Mahato aged about 43 years Son of Radha Mahato resident of Qr. No.-DS-2/117C, Railway Colony, Balidih, Baradi, P.O. and P.S. B. S. City, District Bokaro. …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella Kharsawan P.O. and P.S. Seraikealla, District Seraikella Kharsawan. 3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chandil P.O. and P.S. Chandil, District Seraikella Kharsawan. 4. The Circle Officer, Chandil P.O. and P.S. Chandil, District Seraikella Kharsawan. …... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C (Mines) – III Mr. Kumar Pawan, A.C to S.C (Mines) – III --------- 03/Dated: 28 th July, 2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :- (a) for quashing the order dated 01.12.2022, passed by the L.R.D.C., Chandil in Mutation Appeal No.108/ 2022-2023, whereby and whereunder the mutation appeal preferred by the petitioner has been illegally dismissed referring the land for which the petitioner filed for its mutation on the ground that the land for which mutation was applied falls under the CNT Act and no permission was taken by the competent authority for sale and purchase of the land as per Section 46 of the CNT Act that restricts the transfer of land to non members of the same Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe or backward Class. (b) for quashing the order of the Circle Officer, Chandil, who has refused to mutate the land in Mutation Case No.967 of 2021-22. 2. The claim of the petitioner has been objected by the - 1 - W.P.C No.2146 of 2025 2025:JHHC:20676 learned counsel for the State, stating that both the parties belong to the backward class and as per the mandate of the Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tnancy Act, 1908 permission of the Deputy Commissioner is required. In the absence of such permission, the sale deed cannot be given effect and as such mutation has been rejected. 3. In view of the above fact, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with a liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella Kharsawan, for permission. 4. If any such application is made, the authority concerned is directed to decide the same, after giving due opportunity to the affected parties and to proceed further in accordance with law. 5. With above observation, the present writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. 6. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Ravi-Chandan/- - 2 - W.P.C No.2146 of 2025