1 2025:CGHC:36453 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3921 of 2025 1 - Shivdayal Kanwar S/o Shri Ghasiram Kanwar, Aged About 64 Years Occupation - Agriculturist, R/o Village - Dadargaon, P.C.N. - 04, R.N.M. - Kauhakuda, Tahsil- Pithoura, Distt. - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Additional Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Mahasamund, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pithoura, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Vipin Yadav S/o Shri Harish Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Village - Futguna, Tahsil - Pithoura, Distt. - Mahasamund (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 28/07/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 passed in Revenue Appeal No. 202505970200014/194 year 2024-25 dated 19.06.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur by which the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed along with Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.07.29 11:08:36 +0530 2 appeal under Section 44(2) of the CGLRC 1959 has been dismissed without passing any speaking order even not considered the reasons mentioned in the application and passed the order by dismissing the application under Limitation Act which amounts to dismissal of the appeal, therefore he prays for quashment of the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P-1). 3. Learned counsel for respondents that with regard to the grievance of the petitioner, there is an alternative remedy is available to petitioner under law. 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 the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted under Article 226 of the constitution of India and there is an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to file appeal/revision before the concerned Board of Revenue. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to file appeal/revision before the concerned Board of Revenue. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the case. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti