1 2025:CGHC:41979 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4433 of 2025 1 - Laxmi Ratre Wd/o Late Shri Ramesh Ratre Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Panchdevri, Tehsil Ahiwara, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, Durg District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer Block- Dhamda, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - The Naib Tahsildar Tahsil- Ahiwara, Block- Dhamda, District- Durg (C.G.) 5 - The Sarpanch/ Secretary The Village Panchayat, Panchdevri, Block- Dhamda, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mohd. Naqeeb on behalf of Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Akansha Verma Dabhadkar, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 20/08/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: 2 “10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of mandamus whereby set-aside the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Respondent no. 4, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ whereby the cancellation of Patta held by the petitioner as the same violative of the Section 115 and 116 of the CGLRC, 1959 in furtherance of justice. 10.3 Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have initiated the proceedings to dispossess the petitioner from her land of which she is the lawful owner and holding a lawful patta of the same. The respondent authorities have declared the patta held by the petitioner as unlawful without following a procedure which is prescribed under Section 215 and 216 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. 3. Learned State counsel submits that there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner under Section 44(1) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsels, since an alternate remedy under Section 44(1) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 is available to the petitioner, therefore there is no good ground to entertain this petition. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application before appropriate forum. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima