1 2025:CGHC:50534-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 725 of 2025 1 - Smt. Triveni Bai W/o Late Ramavtar Sonkar Aged About 55 Years R/o Near Sheetala Chowk - Sheetala Mandir, Bhatgaon, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 1 In The Wpc No. 4021 Of 2025) 2 - Rakesh Sonkar S/o Late Ramavtar Sonkar Aged About 39 Years R/o Near Sheetala Chowk - Sheetala Mandir, Bhatgaon, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 2 In The Wpc No. 4021 Of 2025) 3 - Ritesh Sonkar S/o Late Ramavtar Sonkar Aged About 35 Years R/o Near Sheetala Chowk - Sheetala Mandir, Bhatgaon, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 3 In The Wpc No. 4021 Of 2025) 4 - Durgesh Sonkar S/o Late Ramavtar Sonkar Aged About 34 Years R/o Near Sheetala Chowk - Sheetala Mandir, Bhatgaon, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 4 In The Wpc No. 4021 Of 2025) ...Appellants versus 1 - Roshan Lal Gavri S/o Late Manohar Lal Gavri Aged About 65 Years R/o Patrakaar Colony, Fafadih, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1 In The Wpc No. 4021 Of 2025) 2 - Mansaram Sonkar S/o Bhaiya Lal Sonkar R/o Bharibada, Infront Of Wine Shop, Bhatagaon, Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2 In The Wpc No. 4021 Of 2025) VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 3 - Nayab Tahsildar Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3 In The Wpc No. 4021 Of 2025) 4 - Patwari Halka No. 60 Village Bhatagaon, Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 4 In The Wpc No. 4021 Of 2025) 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate For State Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble S hri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4021/2025 (Smt. Triveni Bai and others vs. Roshan Lal Gavri and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. By way of this writ appeal, the appellant has prayed for following 3 reliefs:- “6.1 That, the hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ appeal & set aside the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the hon'ble Single Judge in WPC No. 4021/2025. 6.2 That, the hon'ble court may please be kind enough to quash and set aside the orders dated 03.01.2023 passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Raipur in Case No. RC 202110113800329/A-70/21-22 and order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the SDO Raipur in Appeal Case No.202301111000151/A- 70/22-23. 6.3 That, the hon'ble court may please be kind enough to restore possession of the appellants over lands situated in Khasra Nos. 1145 & 1146/2, Village Bhatgaon, Patwari Circle No.60, Tah. & Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 6.4 That, the hon'ble court may please be kind enough to pass an order for compensation of ₹50,000/- per month for wrongful dispossession till restoration of possession.That, any other reliefs and costs deemed fit may please be allowed to the appellants.” 4. The facts of the case according to the appellants is that the appellants, lawful successors of Late Bhulau Ram Sonkar, are owners and possessors of agricultural lands bearing Khasra Nos. 1145 and 1146/2 situated at Village Bhatgaon, Raipur. Despite their lawful ownership and a pending Civil Suit No. 324A/2021 4 over the same property, the Naib Tahsildar, Raipur, entertained an application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 filed by Respondent No.1 and, without impleading or hearing the appellants, passed an eviction order dated 03.01.2023 against their tenant, Respondent No.2. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Raipur, by an order dated 19.05.2023, mechanically affirmed the said order. 5. Being aggrieved by the the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 passed by Naib Tahsildar Raipur in Case No. RC No. 202110113800329/A-70/21-22 & the impugned order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional officer Revenue Raipur RAC No. 202301111000151/A-70-/22-23., the appellants filed a writ petition bearing WP(C) No.4021/2025 before the Learned Single Judge and the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 31.07.2025 and vide order dated 31.07.2025, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition without considering the grounds raised in the memo of writ petition ground of alternative remedy under Section 44 of the Code, wherein the learned Single Judge has observed that:- “8. Considering the submission of the respondents and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Sub Divisional Officer (R) Raipur has passed the order (Annexure P-1) against the petitioners and the order is an appealable order, therefore there is an 5 alternative remedy_is available to the petitioner under Section 44(1) of the CG Land Revenue Code 1959. Moreover, the petitioners also get relief from the civil suit which is pending before the Civil Court, Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.” 6. Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Hon’ble Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy, without appreciating that the impugned orders passed by the Naib Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer were wholly without jurisdiction, having been passed against a third party without impleading or hearing the appellants, the true owners of the land. It was further submitted that the subject matter of the dispute was already pending adjudication in Civil Suit No. 324A/2021 before a competent Civil Court, and therefore, the subsequent proceedings under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 were barred under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The learned counsel contended that the Revenue Courts and the Hon’ble Single Judge failed to appreciate the violation of the appellants’ fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, as well as the settled principles of natural justice embodied in the maxim Audi Alteram Partem. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise & Taxation Officer, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95, and 6 Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 19 SCC 241, to submit that availability of an alternate remedy is no bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, especially where orders are passed in violation of fundamental legal principles. It was therefore urged that the impugned orders, being illegal, void and passed in disregard of due process, be quashed/set-aside and the appellants’ possession and ownership rights over the subject agricultural land be restored by allowing the present appeal. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. learned Advocate General for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, in which no interference is called for. Accordingly, the present appeal is also liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 9. After careful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties and a thorough perusal of the impugned order and the relevant records, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur, is an appealable order and that the appellants have an alternate and efficacious remedy under Section 44(1) of 7 the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Additionally, the appellants may seek relief in the pending civil suit before the competent Civil Court. It is well settled that the availability of an alternate remedy is a valid ground for declining writ jurisdiction unless exceptional circumstances exist. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated that would warrant interference with the impugned order. 10. Therefore, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of the order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. As such, the present writ appeal stands dismissed. No cost(s). 11. Interlocutory application(s), if any pending, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Vishakha