1 2025:CGHC:33945 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3664 of 2025 1 - Devendra @ Ghasilal Patel S/o Jeevrakhan Lal Aged About 76 Years R/o Village Reda, Tehsil Dabhra, District - Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Sakti District - Sakti Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dabhara District - Sakti Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar Dabhara District - Sakti Chhattisgarh 5 - Nayab Tahsildar Chandrapur District - Sakti Chhattisgarh 6 - Devnarayan S/o Raghunandan Aged About 49 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village Reda, (Para Bijani) Tehsil Dabhara District - Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent(s) For Caveator : : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 18/07/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: 2 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 passed by respondent no. 3 in Revenue Case No. E.Court No. 202505310400009/A-6A/2024-25 Village Reda (Para Bijani) Tehsil Dabhara, District Sakti (C.G.) 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court. 10.3 Any other relief, which may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by respondent no. 3 whereas the application filed by the respondent no. 6 under Section 32 r/w Section 115 & 116 of C.G. Land Revenue Code for correction of revenue entries in land situated at Village Reda Tehsil Dabhara land bearing khasra no. 1375/1, 1376/1, total khasra 02, total rakba 1.20 acre land which is prior to mutation no. 12 order dated 26.05.1996 being owner of that land the name of respondent no. 6 as claiming to be mentioned in land record. The respondent no. 6 further claimed that the Nayab Tahsildar Chandrapur/respondent no. 6 without giving any opportunity of hearing on the basis of memo no. 1179/Na.Ta./Wa./2020- 21 dated 11.08.2021 given reference and mutated the name of respondent revenue record. He further claim that the Commissioner Bilaspur has also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and claiming to be rectify the mutation entry in the said revenue record. The respondent no. 3 3 after hearing only to the respondent no. 6 passed the order and directed to be rectify the revenue record and mutated the name of respondent no. 6 on the said revenue record. A civil suit no. 43-A/2021 is pending before the Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge Senior Division at Dabhara District- Sakti (C.G.) in which the issues has been frame on the grounds of adverse possession, knowing all these facts same was suppressed before the respondent no. 3 by the respondent no. 6 filed an application for correction of revenue record same was allowed by the respondent no. 3 in Revenue Case No. E.Court No. 202505310400009/A-6A/2024-25 Village Reda (Para Bijani) Tehsil Dabhara, District Sakti (C.G.) on 07.05.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the caveator submits that petitioner has suppressed the material facts that there are 3 writ petitions pending before this Court challenging the order of the Collector and this Court has passed the order of protection in favour of the Caveator. 4. Learned Counsel for the State submits that there is a dispute by and between the petitioner and private respondents and the order of the SDO (Revenue) is appealable order under Section 44(1)(b) of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, therefore, this petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dabhara, District Sakti has passed the order dated 07.05.2025 wherein he held that “izdj.k dk voyksdu ,oa ijh’khyu fd;k x;kA izdj.k esa Li”V 4 gS fd uk;c rglhynkj pUnziqj rglhy Mhkjk tkjh Kkiu dzekad 1179@uk-rg-@ok-@2021 MHkjk fnukad 11@08@2021 fcuk vkosndx.k dks lquokbZ dk leqfpr volj iznku fd;s fcuk ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ftls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA iz’uk/khu ukekarj.k dzekad 12 vkns’k fnukad 26@05@1996 ds fo:) U;k;ky; vij vk;qDr fcykliqj ds le{k f}rh; vihy izLrqr fd;k x;k v-iz-dz-322@v&6@2021&22 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 16@10@2023 vihy fujLr fd;k x;k gSA blfy, ukekarj.k dzekad 12 vkns’k fnukad 26@05@1996 iwoZor~ fd;k tkrk gSA rr~i’pkr~ rglhynkj MHkjk nksuks i{kksa dks lquokbZ i’pkr~ izdj.k esa fof/kor~ ukekarj.k vkns’k ikfjr djsaA izdj.k uLrhc) dj fjdkMZ :e esa tek djsaA” 7. There is a provision of appeal against the order of SDO (R), therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner that the petitioner may file an appeal under Section 44(1) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and raise all his grievances before the appellate court. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima