1 2025:CGHC:59722 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1410 of 2024 1. Smt. Dolly Sajumon W/o P.R. Sajumon Aged About 49 Years R/o Quarter No. 9/b, Road No. 31, Sector 04, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3. Sub -Divisional Officer (Revenue), Patan, Tahsil Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Tahsildar, Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 09/12/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for following reliefs:- “i. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased command and direct the respondents SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2025.12.10 17:55:18 +0530 2 to provide the revenue records of thelands owned by the petitioner sitauted at Gram Dhour, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (CG) along with interest. ii. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents release the revenue records of the lands owned by the petitioner at the earliest. iii. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner submitted an application for grant of revenue documents of Khasra No.370 and 371 situated in village Dhour, Tehsil Patan, District Durg, which he required for purpose of sale of land. The documents with regard to Khasra No.371 was provided, however, documents with regard to Khasra No.370 is denied on the ground that in revenue record this land/subject land is recorded as Kotwari land. He contended that petitioner has purchased aforementioned land from one Jyoti Bhoi, therefore, it is private ownership land. 3. Learned State Counsel has filed reply stating that land bearing Khasra No.371 is registered in revenue records as Kotwari land, therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the Tahsildar. 4. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the record. 5. Perusal of order, Annexure P-1 reveals that it is passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Patan on 31.1.2024 in Revenue Case 3 No.202401104500024/A-6/2023-24. As per provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code of 1959’), any order passed by the Tahsildar is appellable or revisable under the Code of 1959. 6. Efficacious alternate remedy under the Code of 1959 is available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievance. Where alternate statutory remedy is available, writ petition can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax & others vs. Commercial Steel Limited, reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 884, wherein referring to its earlier decision in case of Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar of Trademarks, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, 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; 4 or(iv) a challenge to the vires of the statues or delegated legislation.” 7. No exceptional circumstance so as to entertain this writ petition is brought to notice to this Court. Further, considering the nature of dispute raised in this writ petition as also considering the reply submitted on behalf of the State, revenue authority would be proper authority to adjudicate and decide the issue raised in this writ petition. 8. For the foregoing reason and discussion, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition because petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy available under the Code of 1959. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to petitioner to avail efficacious alternate remedy available under the law. 9. Office is directed to return original certified copies of documents filed along with writ petition after retaining photocopy of the same. 10. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-