1 2025:CGHC:41396 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4402 of 2025 1 - Beena Singh W/o Devraj Singh Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Chirhula, Tahsil And District Mungeli, C.G. Current Address- Maharana Pratap Ward Pandariya Road Infront Of Bijli Office Mungeli, Tahsil And District- Mungeli C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector District Mungeli C.G. 3 - Tahsildar Mungeli District- Mungeli Cg 4 - Sudhir Gowardhan S/o Late Balkrishna Gowardhan R/o Village Pendarakapa Tahsil And District Mungeli Cg ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 18/08/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs: “10.1 It is therefore prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to issue a 2 writ/order/directions to quash/set-aside the complete proceedings of the Tahsildar Mungeli in Case No. 202409250200050/A- 13/23-24 (Annexure P/1), Order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 & eviction notice dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure P/2), in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are challenging the order dated 16.07.2025 & eviction notice dated 17.07.2025 and the complete revenue proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 3 in case no. 202409250200050/A-13/23-24, whereby the respondent no. 3 ignoring the preliminary objection filed by the petitioners and without providing opportunity to lead witness/cross- examination of the parties and without the reply of the petitioners has ordered in favour of the respondent no. 4 and ordered the petitioners to remove the obstruction u/s 131 r/w 133 of CGLRC and also issued the eviction notice. 3. Learned State counsel submits that there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner, therefore this petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the 3 record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties, since an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 44 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, therefore there is no good ground to entertain this petition. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima