1 2025:CGHC:38254 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4095 of 2025 1 - Lachchhani W/o Bajrang Nag, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Palki, Tahsil Narayanpur, District - Narayanpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Shanti Dugga W/o Shivnath Dugga Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Kurushnar Tahsil Narayanpur, District - Narayanpur (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Itu Rani Mukherjee Advocate For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 04/08/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 28-01-2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Commissioner of Bastar Division (C.G.) in Revenue Appeal No. 202501950100051/2024-25, whereby the petitioner filed the appeal with application for grant of stay under Section 52 (2) of the Land Revenue Code before the learned Commissioner, but the learned commissioner has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide this impugned order dated 28-01-2025, therefore learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashment of the Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.08.06 10:51:40 +0530 2 impugned order dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) and the case be remanded back to the Commissioner Bastar. 2. Since the petitioner has not made party on behalf of the State, therefore this Court request to Shri Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. to assist this Court on this issue. 3. Learned counsel for respondents that there is dispute between the petitioner and private respondent for patta of land and against the order of Commissioner, there is an alternative remedy is available to petitioner to challenge the order of the Commissioner before the Board of Revenue. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the submission of the respondents and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to approach the Board of Revenue against the order of the Commissioner. As such, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order of the Commissioner before the Board of Revenue, if she so wants 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti