1 / 3 2025:CGHC:60916 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6528 of 2025 Gend Prasad Tiwari S/o Lt. Shri Bedprasad Tiwari Aged About 85 Years R/o Village- Bamhandih, Post Komakhan, Tahsil- Bagbahra, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Revenue Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bagbahra, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar Bagbahra, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 – Patwari, Patwari H.No. 47, RNM Komakhan, Tehsil- Bagbahra, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 6 - Rajendra Sharma S/o Tarachand Sharma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Bamhandih, Tehsil- Bagbahra, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.12.17 10:59:55 +0530 2 / 3 For Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandra, Advocate For State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 15/12/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus setting aside impugned order dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure P/4); (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Collector Mahasamund to decide the application of the petitioner for cancellation of (iV~Vk) afresh on its merit. (iii) Pass any other order the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complaint filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Tahsildar against which petitioner has submitted representation before the Sub Divisional Officer as also Collector which was not considered. 3. Perusal of proceedings Annexure P-4 would show that the authorities like Sub Divisional Officer and Additional Collector while passing impugned order, have recorded a finding that complaint filed by petitioner being baseless, petitioner is having alternate remedy of appeal. Petitioner has not filed any appeal and, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition in view of availability of alternate remedy to petitioner to challenge the order of Tahsildar. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed reserving rights of petitioner to avail other alternate remedy available to him under the law. 3 / 3 5. Registry is directed to return back certified copy of the documents enclosed along with this writ petition after retaining photocopy of the same. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen