1 2025:CGHC:17336 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 482 of 2018 1 - Smt. Suriti Bai D/o Shri Kusaro, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Patelpali, Raigarh, Tah. And District Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Tahsildar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner None appears even in the second round For State Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records of the petitioner case. 10.2 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to quash the impugned order dated 28.12.17 passed by the Sub Divisional officer (Revenue) and direct to record the name of the petitioner in revenue record of the land situated in the village- Patelpali, Khasra No. 31, 33, 218, 255, 296 Rakba 0.324, 0.202, 0.223, REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- 2.748, 0.231 hectare. 10.3 Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.4 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioner.” 2. A perusal of the writ petition would show that at the relevant time, the father of the petitioner was Kotwar of Gram Panchayat, Patelpali. 3. The petitioner moved an application before the Tehsildar to enter his name against Survey Nos. 31, 33, 218, 255, 296 admeasuring 0.324, 0.202, 0.223, 0.748 and 0.231 hectares in the revenue records as Bhumiswami right. The application moved by the petitioner was rejected by the Tehsildar on 16.08.2017. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 28.12.2017 dismissed the appeal. Against the said order, the present petition has been preferred. 4. Mr. Bajpayee, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would submit that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to prefer a second appeal before the Commissioner against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. He would further submit that a Notification was issued by the State Government on 10.03.2014 to the effect that Kotwars cannot be given Bhumiswami rights over the service land. He would contend that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 5. Heard the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that there is an efficacious alternative remedy to prefer an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner according to the provisions of Section 44 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and further a Notification has already been issued by the State Government dated 10.03.2014 wherein a direction has been issued to the revenue authorities to not record the names of Kotwars against the service land as Bhumiswami right, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha