1 2025:CGHC:50446 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 205 of 2020 1 - Khushbu Singh W/o Ajit Gupta Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 20, Near Civil Court, Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Baikunthpur Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent / State : Shri Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 09/10/2025 Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition - i. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate writ, order and quash / set aside the order dated 30/11/2019 passed by respondent No.3 and further pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to grant the permission to divert 2 the land of petitioner. ii. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 30/11/2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manendragarh, District – Koriya, CG in case No.05/A-2/2019-2 by which the application of the petitioner under Section 172 of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code of 1959’) for diversion of the land comprised in piece of khasra No.142/71 area 0.013 hectare situated at village – Manendragarh, CG was rejected only on the ground that the said property does not have any approach road. He submits that initially an application under Section 172 of the Code of 1959 was filed before the Tahsildar who after due enquiry submitted a report before the Sub-Divisional Officer and after considering the same, the impugned order was passed by the SDO. Therefore, this writ petition was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the order was passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer in the original capacity which is appealable to the Collector under Section 44 of the Code of 1959 and the petitioner has now availed the statutory alternative remedy, therefore, this writ petition may not be entertained and may be dismissed. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to avail the alternative remedy as envisaged under the Code of 1959. 5. Be that as it may, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, this Court is inclined to dispose off this petition permitting the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available under the law within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If such an appeal is filed within that period, the period of limitation may be considered sympathetically by the appellate authority / Collector considering the provisions contained in Section 14 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. With this observation, this petition is finally disposed off. Certified copy of annexures if any may be returned to the 3 counsel for the petitioner after attaining duly attested photo copy of the same. All pending applications are disposed off. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.10.14 11:13:21 +0530