1 2025:CGHC:17744 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2605 of 2022 1 - Parmanand S/o Rajendra Nath Biswas Aged About 72 Years R/o Bayasi Colony Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue , Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Commissioner Bilaspur , Division District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sanjay Kumar Jain S/o Prakash Jain R/o D- 8, Sector No. 2, Balco Nagar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/04/2025 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Camp court, Raigarh (C.G.) in an appeal filed under Section 44 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code in respect of land bearing khasra No. 80/1A/12 admeasuring 1.943 hectares situated at Village – Bayasi, Tahsil – Dharamjaigarh, Distt. - Raigarh (C.G.). 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the land in question is a Government land that has been in his possession since 1970-71. As a refugee from Bangladesh, the petitioner was rehabilitated in the village under a Central Government scheme and was subsequently granted a lease/patta by the State Government. However, the petitioner alleges Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 that he was fraudulently induced to execute a sale deed in favor of respondent No. 5 without receiving the full consideration amount. When the petitioner demanded the payment, respondent No. 5 claimed that the lease had been cancelled and refused to vacate the land. The petitioner then applied for return of the land, and the Tahsildar, Dharamjaigarh, submitted a report rejecting the lease/patta of the petitioner on the grounds that the land was granted for the livelihood of petitioner as a refugee, but the petitioner had sold it without permission. The Tahsildar cancelled the lease/patta. The petitioner appealed to the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, who rejected the appeal vide order dated 21.04.2022, holding that the petitioner had violated the conditions of the patta and Section 165(7-B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2, the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur, erred in rejecting the appeal of petitioner. The petitioner had alleged that respondent No. 5 defrauded him, executing a deed without paying the entire consideration amount which does not constitute a valid sale as defined under the Transfer of Property Act, as such, the order is required to be interfered with. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petition itself is not maintainable and according to part 4 of the Revenue Book Circular, petitioner has to approach before the State Government against the order passed by the respondent No. 2. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record with atmost circumspection. 6. Part 4 of Revenue Book Circular relates to allotment of land. Relevant paragraphs are quoted below for ready reference : 3 " भाग चार - अन्य प्रयोजनों के लिए भूमि का आवंटन कं डिका 28. अन्य प्रयोजनों के लिए भूमि - जिजन प्रयोजनों के लिये भूमि आबंटन करने का उल्लेख इन मि"दायतों ें न"ीं "ै उनके लिये अग से सय- सय पर जो आदेश मिदये जाएँगे उनके अनुसार भूमियों का आबंटन/ व्यवस्थापन मिकया जायेगा। भाग पाँच - अपी और मिनगरानी कं डिका 30. (1) इस परिरपत्र के अंतग5त के व एक "ी अपी की जा सके गी । आवंटन अनुमिवभागीय अडि7कारी ज"ाँ त"सीदार/ नायब त"सीदार "ो, उनके आदेश के मिवरुद्ध - अनुमिवभागीय अडि7कारी को एवं ज"ाँ आबंटन अडि7कारी - केक्टर "ो उनके आदेश के मिवरुद्ध - संभागीय कमिश्नर को आदेश की तारीख के 45 मिदन के अंदर अपी की जा सके गी। अपी ें पारिरत आदेश अंडित "ोगा। अपी करने का अडि7कार- प्रश्ना7ीन भूमि से गी "ुई भूमि के काश्तकार संबंडि7त ग्रा पंचायत तथा ऐसे व्यमि@ जिजसका भू- आवंटन के लिए आवेदन-पत्र, प्रश्ना7ीन भूमि का आवंटन "ोने के सय ंमिबत र"ा "ो, - को "ोगा। इसके अडितरिर@ अपीीय अडि7कारी की मिवशेष अनुडित से वे व्यमि@ भी अपी कर सकें गे जो मिकन्"ीं अपरिर"ाय5 कारणवश सय पर आवेदन- पत्र न"ीं दे सके । (2) इस परिरपत्र के अंतग5त पारिरत मिकये गये मिकसी भी ू आवंटन अथवा अपी आदेश - जो जिजाध्यक्ष द्वारा पारिरत मिकया गया "ो - को स्वयेव अथवा संबंडि7त व्यमि@ आवेदन- पत्र पर मिनगरानी संभागीय कमिश्नर द्वारा की जा सके गी। परन्तु यमिद आवंटन आदेश के मिवरुद्ध कं डिका 30-1 के अंतग5त अपी की जा सकती थी परन्तु न"ीं की गई तो ऐसे आदेश के मिवरुद्ध कोई पक्ष मिनगरानी आवेदन- पत्र प्रस्तुत न"ीं कर सके गा। (3) आयु@ द्वारा अपी ें पारिरत मिकये गये आदेश के मिवरूद्ध मिनगरानीय राज्य शासन को की जा सके गी ।" 7. From perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs of Revenue Book Circular, it is quite vivid that in respect of cancellation of lease, if any appeal is preferred before the Commissioner, then appropriate remedy available 4 under the law is to file a revision as per paragraph 30 (3) of the Revenue Book Circular to the State, however, in the present matter, the petitioner has not availed the efficacious alternate remedy, instead, has directly approached this Court by filing this writ petition which is not maintainable. When a statute prescribes a procedure in a particular manner, it must be followed in letter and spirit. One cannot cherry-pick forums according to convenience. Although there are instances where the availability of an alternate remedy can be overlooked, the conditions laid down in Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107, must be met. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of United Bank of India vs. Stayawati Tondon and Others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 highlights the principles governing exercise of writ jurisdiction despite availability of alternative remedy and reiterates that existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to entertaining a writ petition, but Court would generally decline jurisdiction if adequate alternative remedy is available. Relevant portion is quoted below for ready reference : “49. The views expressed in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] were echoed in CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. [(1985) 1 SCC 260 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 75] in the following words: (SCC p. 264, para 3) “3. … Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely 5 matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged.” 53. In Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Directorate of Enforcement [(2010) 4 SCC 772] the Court was dealing with the issue whether the alternative statutory remedy available under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 can be bypassed and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked. After examining the scheme of the Act, the Court observed: (SCC p. 781, paras 31-32) “31. When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance and that too in a fiscal statute, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. In this case the High Court is a statutory forum of appeal on a question of law. That should not be abdicated and given a go- by by a litigant for invoking the forum of judicial review of the High Court under writ jurisdiction. The High Court, with great respect, fell into a manifest error by not appreciating this aspect of the matter. It has however dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 32. No reason could be assigned by the appellant's counsel to demonstrate why the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 35 of FEMA does not provide an efficacious remedy. In fact there could hardly be any reason since the High Court itself is the appellate forum.”” 9. Recently, in case of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others vs. Commercial Steel Limited, reported in (2022) 16 SCC 447, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “10. The respondent had a statutory remedy under Section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under 6 Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: (i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation. 11. In the present case, none of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance. In this backdrop, it was not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the High Court has while doing this exercise proceeded on the basis of surmises. However, since we are inclined to relegate the respondent to the pursuit of the alternate statutory remedy under Section 107, this Court makes no observation on the merits of the case of the respondent.” 10. Since the aforementioned conditions have not been fulfilled in the present case, the petitioner is directed to avail the appropriate alternative remedies available under the law. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to approach before the State Government. He further prays that as the matter related to cancellation of patta, the concerned authority may be directed to decide the same within some specified time. 12. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 13. If petitioner approaches the State Government within a period of 30 days, the concerned authorities are directed to decide the same within a further period of 60 days. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE