1 2025:CGHC:44174 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4634 of 2025 1 - Lakhan Lal Sindhram S/o Mohit Ram Sindhram Aged About 45 Years R/o Jatga Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) 2 - Satish Prasad Sindhram S/o Mohit Ram Sindhram Aged About 28 Years R/o Jatga Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) 3 - Toran Prasad Sindhram S/o Mohit Ram Sindhram Aged About 25 Years R/o Jatga Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ajay Kumar Singh S/o Shankar Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Jatga, Tehsil- Podiuproda, District-Korba (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Tehsildar, Pasan, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Poorva Tiwari, Panel lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 01/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following relief: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly allow the petition and quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 in 2 revenue case no. 202410053000037/A- 70/2024 passed by the learned Tehsildar Pasan, District- Korba (C.G.) (Annexure P/1) in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondent Tehsildar to rehear the revenue case no. 202410053000037/A- 70/2024 after impleading the petitioners as a party and giving him a proper opportunity of hearing, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which deemed fit and proper may also be issued looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the interest of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 1 filed a revenue case against the petitioner’s father, who died on 24.01.2025, and respondent no. 1 has already informed about the demise of petitioner’s father but without impleading the legal heirs as the party in the concerned case, the Tehsildar passed the impugned order. 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 is not maintainable. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 3 5. Looking to the entire 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. The petitioner may file an appeal under Section 44(1) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the concerned authority, if so desire. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima