1 2025:CGHC:42087 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1702 of 2021  Nehru Lakra S/o Late Pette Lakra Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Pakargaon, Tahsil- Pathalgaon, P.S. Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. Sub- Divisional Ofifcer (Revenue) Kharsia District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. Tahsildar, Kharsia District Raigarh, Chhattisgrh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 20-08-2025 1) Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order passed by Collector, Raigarh dated 05.12.2020 whereby the authority concerned has declined to grant permission according to the provisions of Section 165(6) of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that authority Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.08.20 17:31:08 +0530 2 concerned has declined to grant permission for sale of Khasra Nos. 233, 234, 235, 236, 237 and 247/3 ad-measuring 2.536 hectares situated at Village–Kunkuri, Tehsil–Kharsiya, District– Raigarh (C.G.) in accordance with Section 165 (6) of the Code, 1959 regardless of the fact that petitioner is a member of aboriginal tribe and he complied with all requirements contemplated under Section 165(6) of Code, 1959. He further submits that petitioner is in dire need of money and he has proposed to purchase the lands at different places, therefore, authority concerned ought to have allowed the application. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. She submits that land in question is part of Schedule Area and permission under Section 165(6) of the Code, 1959 cannot be granted by the competent authority. 4) Heard. 5) Taking into consideration the submission made by learned State counsel to the effect that land in question is part of Schedule Area, Collector, Raigarh has rightly declined permission under Section 165(6) of the Code, 1959. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out to interfere with the order impugned. 6) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed at admission stage. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya