Collector Directed to Decide Long-Pending Application for Permission to Sell Rehabilitation Land Within Stipulated Timeline

The petitioners, recorded co-owners of rehabilitation land in Village Fundurdihari, Surguja, sought to sell a portion of their land due to financial necessity.

Originally allotted by the Rehabilitation Department, Government of India, the land requires prior permission for sale under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.

The petitioners filed an application for this permission before the Collector, Surguja, on 22.11.2021.

Despite the completion of statutory inquiry, publication of notices, and a favorable report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (R) on 08.12.2022, the Collector failed to pass a final order for over four years.

Consequently, the petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 for a writ of mandamus directing the authority to decide the pending application.

1. Whether the prolonged inaction of the Collector in deciding a statutory application for permission to sell land constitutes a failure to exercise jurisdiction warranting judicial intervention.

2. Whether the court should issue a time-bound direction for the disposal of the application pending under Section 165(7-B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.

Section 165(7-B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, which prescribes the necessity of obtaining prior permission from the Collector for the transfer of land allotted by the Government.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India to redress administrative delay that was characterized as arbitrary and unreasonable.

The court observed that the petitioners had initiated the statutory process as early as November 2021.

It noted from the record that all internal procedural formalities, including the Tehsildar’s inquiry and the SDO’s report dated 08.12.2022, had been concluded with no objections received.

The court found that despite these favorable reports being on record, the competent authority (the Collector) had kept the matter pending without justification for several years.

Applying the principle of administrative efficiency and the right to a timely decision, the court determined that such a delay caused undue financial hardship and required a direction for expedited disposal.

The court specifically mandated that the final decision be taken within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order copy.