1 2025:CGHC:55143 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5806 of 2025 1 - Sampat Jaiswal S/o Ramkumar Jaiswal Aged About 42 Years R/o Shakri Nagar Ward No. 8, Nagar Panchayat Pathariya, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kamal Narayan Dwivedi S/o Vyasnarayan Dwivedi Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Nagar Panchayat Pathariya, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Mungeli, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Sdo Revenue, Pathariya, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Nazul Officer Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Tehsildar Pathariya, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. S. C. Verma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Manharan Lal Sahu, Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General Caveator : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 2 12.11.2025 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition, seeking following reliefs:- “a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order quashing the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the SDO (Revenue), Pathariya, district Mungeli (C.G.) b. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order quashing the impugned order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the Nazul officer, Mungeli (C.G.) c. Declare the back-dated order void for being illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, passed without hearing and in violation of natural justice. d. Direct the respondents to restore the status of the petitioners as prevailing prior to the impugned order and not to disturb their peaceful possession. e. Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the authorities to consider the petitioner’s application under the Bhu-Bhatak Scheme strictly in accordance with the policy prevailing at the time of their application dated 03/09/2020. f. Restrain the respondents, their agents and authorities from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession over the subject land without due process of law. g. Award cost of the petition and pass such other relief(s) as may be deemed just, fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. During the course of argument, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners would submit that the petitioner has filed this writ petition presuming that revenue authorities are not providing proper opportunity of hearing to them. Referring to Annexure P-9 he would submit that Prem Kumar Bhargav who was engaged as an advocate on behalf of petitioners has filed an affidavit that the case was fixed before Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Respondent no. 2 on 17.10.2025 for appearance and next date fixed was 29.10.2025. Petitioners were of the view that the case is to be heard on 29.10.2025 however, subsequently, on 29.10.2025 they came to know that the final order has already been passed by the first appellate authority i.e. SDO (Revenue) on 17.10.2025. Immediately thereafter, they have submitted an application before SDO (Revenue) for certified copy of the order /proceedings and have filed this writ petition apprehending that adverse action of eviction may be taken against them. 3. Counsel for State would oppose the submission made by counsel for petitioners and would submit that no document has been filed showing that order has been passed by SDO (Revenue)/Respondent no. 2 on preponed date i.e. on 17.10.2025. He further submits that writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners having efficacious alternate remedy of appeal 3 under Section 44(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. In support of his contention he referred to first para of impugned order Annexure P-1 to say that the order which is subject matter of this writ petition is passed in an appeal filed under Section 44(1) of the Code of 1959. 4. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents enclosed along with this writ petition. 5. On due consideration of submission made by counsel for the respective parties, it is apparent that impugned order which is passed by SDO (Revenue) is an appeal filed under Section 44(1) of the Code of 1959. Order passed by SDO(Revenue) in first appeal is appealable before the Commissioner in second appeal under Section 44(2) of the Code of 1959. The ground which is argued by learned senior counsel is not of exceptional nature so as to entertain this writ petition by passing alternate remedy of appeal available under the statue that is the Code of 1959. The writ petition can be entertained by passing the alternate remedy of appeal or revision under the statute only on exceptional cases as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others [(1998) 8 SCC 1], has carved out four exceptions under which writ petition can be maintainable even if alternate remedy of revision or appeal is available. 6.Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax & others vs. Commercial Steel Limited [(2021) SCC OnLine SC 884, following the decision in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra) has observed thus: “11. 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 alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under 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 statues or delegated legislation.” 12.In the present case, none of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of 4 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 preceded on the basis of surmises, makes no observation on the merits of the case of the respondent.” 7. In case of Whirlpool Corporation(supra) as also in Commercial Steel Limited (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that where the statute provides alternate remedy of appeal or revision, High Court should not normally entertain the writ petitions in exercise of power filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Petitioner could not able to make out a case that any of exceptions, as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions for entertaining the writ petition by passing alternate efficacious statutory remedy. 9.In the aforementioned facts of the case, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when admittedly petitioners have efficacious alternate remedy of appeal under section 44(2) of the code of 1959. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty with the petitioners to avail other alternate remedy available to them under law. 10.At this stage counsel for petitioners submits that in view of facts and circumstances of the case as projected in this writ petition, some interim protection may be granted otherwise, designated house of which petitioner is possessed with, may be demolished. 11. Considering the facts fo the case and submission made by counsel for petitioners, in the larger interest of justice, purely as an interim measure, it is directed that for a period of 15 days from today, status quo with respect to possession of petitioner on subject land be maintained by the parties, enabling the petitioners to file an appeal along with an application of interim relief. 5 12. With the aforementioned observation/direction, this writ petition is disposed of. C.C. Today. sd/- alfiza (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.11.12 18:42:20 +0530