1 / 3 2025:CGHC:37882 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4074 of 2025 Lalji Chandrakar S/o Bhagwat Chandrakar Aged About 62 Years Caste Kurmi, R/o Village Thunupar, Tehsil- Pipariya, District- Kabirdham C.G. ... Petitioner versus Banshilal Chandrakar S/o Bihari Chandrakar Aged About 40 Years Caste Kurmi, R/o Village Thunupar, Tehsil- Pipariya, District- Kabirdham C.G. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 01/08/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 04/07/2025 passed by the Tehsildar, Pipariya, District Kabirdham in Case No. 202506081500043 A 6- Year 2024-25, whereby the learned Tehsildar has passed the order for mutation of part of land bearing Khasra No.187/7, area 0.210 hectare in name of the Respondent. 2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioners are that pursuant to the family partition on 03/06/2019 the petitioner and respondent were ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.08.06 10:42:22 +0530 2 / 3 carrying agriculture activity on their respective lands and the land of the possession of the petitioner was 187/7. Respondent moved an application for mutation of area 0.210 hecatare of Khasra No.187/7, area 0.429 hectare, situated at Village Thunupar, Patwari Halka No.16 on the basis of a registered Dan Patra executed by Bhagwat Chandrakar before the Tehsildar. The petitioner filed his objection on the ground that he is already in possession of the said land by way of partition agreement dated 03/06/2019 executed by his father and stated the aforesaid gift deed as a fraudulent document. However, the Tehsildar without considering the same has passed the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent authority without following the due procedure of law and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed the final order, which is against the law. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 6. Be that as it may, since there is an alternative remedy under Section 44 (1) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 is available to the petitioner for filing of appeal against the order of the Tehsildar dated 04/07/2025, therefore, the petitioner, if so advised, may file an 3 / 3 appeal under Section 44 (1) of the Code, 1959 before the concerned Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue). 7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- SD/ (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu