1 2025:CGHC:50780 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5334 of 2025 1 - Dhaneshwari W/o Hosram, Aged About 44 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village- Selma, Tahsil- Batauli, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Surguja (C.G.) 2 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 3 - The Tahsildar, Batauli, District Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Bhuneshwar S/o Kalpnath, Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Selma, Tahsil- Batauli, District Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Hosram S/o Jayram, R/o Village Selma, Tahsil Batauli, District Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Sukhdev S/o Jayram, R/o Village Selma, Tahsil Batauli, District Surguja (C.G.) 7 - Pyari Bai D/o Jayram, R/o Village Selma, Tahsil Batauli, District Surguja (C.G.) 8 - Kamli D/o Jayram, R/o Village Selma, Tahsil Batauli, District Surguja (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Rajput, on behalf of Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Akanksha Verma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 13/10/2025 Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.10.14 16:51:01 +0530 2 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief(s);- 10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the order dated 18.09.2025 (Annexure P-1). 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be granted any other relief/order/direction in favour of petitioner, which deemed fit & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 in Revenue Case No. 30/A-6/2022-23 (Annexure P/1), whereby the respondent no. 2 has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 4 and set-aside the order dated 27.01.2023 passed by the respondent no. 3. While passing the impugned order, the respondent no. 2 has disbelieved the will deed dated 06.07.2021 executed by late Kameshwari Kunwar in favou of petitioner and thereby the respondent no. 2 has exceeded its jurisdiction, as the power to examine or enquire about execution of will is vested upon the Civil Court. It is further submitted that earlier vide order dated 23.04.2025 in a proceedings under Section 164-165 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the respondent no. 2 has declared the petitioner as owner of subject property, but while passing the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 the respondent no. 2 has directed for mutation of same subject property in the name of respondent no. 4. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been issued on 18.09.2025 and much prior to passing impugned order, the services of respondent no. 2 3 was transferred from Deputy Collector, Surguja to Deputy Commissioner, Nagar Palik Nigam, Korba by order dated 15.09.2025, thus it is clear that the respondent no. 2 has passed an stigmatic and illegal order. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for respondents that with regard to the grievance of the petitioner, there is an alternative remedy is available to petitioner to file appeal under Section 44 of CG Land Revenue Code 1959. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the submission of the respondents and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 44 of the CG Land Revenue Code 1959. The petitioner is at liberty to file appeal under Section 44 of the CG Land Revenue Code. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 7. Subject to the petitioner furnishing photocopy of the documents, the certified copy shall be returned to the petitioner. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti