IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A.No. 390 of 2015 Sanat Kumar Mahto @ Ratan Mahto …. …. Appellant Versus Chamtu Kalindi & Anr. …. …. Respondents ---------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For the Res. No. 2 and 4 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate ---------- Order No. 14/ dated 30.04.2025 Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant on the point of admission in presence of learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 4. 2. It is submitted that there is concurrent finding of both the courts-below that the transfer of agricultural land by the member of scheduled caste to the member of non-scheduled caste i.e. backward class without permission of the concerned Deputy Commissioner is not valid under the provisions of Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that there was a circular issued by the Govt. of Bihar on the basis of a decision of the Patna High Court that there is no such permission is required under Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act for the sale of land by member of scheduled caste. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 4 has also pointed out that in this appeal there is no substantial question of law is involved, therefore, this appeal is fit to be dismissed. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances since Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act has also been considered by both the courts-below and there is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal, therefore, it 2 could not be admitted and accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission itself. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) P.K.S.