1 2026:CGHC:14261 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1307 of 2026 Bharatlal Jaisawal S/o Sahus Ram Jaisawal Aged About 47 Years Caste Kalar, R/o Bilaspur, Hemu Nagar, Infront Of Mahamaya Temple Near Old East Cabin Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Janki Devi Dhanwar D/o Dashrath Singh Caste Dhanwar, R/o Village Tendua, Tahsil Sepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Rampadum S/o Pitamber Aged About 67 Years Caste Kewat, R/o Village Ferhada, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - SDM (Revenue) Distt Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 5 - Tahsildar Distt Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Avik Lakra, Advocate For Respondents 3 to 5/State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. Advocate General (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 25.03.2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):- 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant Writ Petition in the interest of Justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the Order dtd. 02/12/2025 (Annexure P/1 ) passed by BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.03.30 11:08:13 +0530 2 Respondent No.3 in Rev. case No. 202501065200005/A- 23/2024-25 Rev. Court Akaltara Dt. Janjgir Champa, C.G. 10.3 Any other reliefs may be granted to the Petitioner as the Hon'ble Court may feel deem fit in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased lands bearing Khasra No.56, area 1.1250 hectare and Khasra No.279, area 0.648 hectare situated at village Sanker Tahsil Alaktara, vide two registered sale deeds dated 12.6.2025 from respondent No.2. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 had earlier purchased the said land from the father of respondent No.1, namely Dashrath Singh, vide registered sale deeds dated 27.5.2011. Learned counsel further submits that in the year 2011, the caste ‘Dhanuhar’ was not included in the category of Scheduled Tribe, rather the said caste came to be included under the Scheduled Tribe category as ‘Dhanuwar’ pursuant to Notification dated 04.08.2023. She further submits that on account of notification dated 04.8.2023, respondent No.1/Janki Devi Dhanwar, who is daughter of Dashrath Singh, filed an application under Section 170 B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code 1959’) before Sub Divisional Officer, Akltara. Pursuant thereto, Revenue Case No.202501065200005/A-23/2024-25 was registered and vide Order dated 02.12.2025, the said revenue case was allowed, directing that the subject land be recorded in the name of Dashrath Singh, father of respondent No.1. She further submits that effect of the aforesaid amendment/notification is prospective in nature and not retrospective, however, without considering this aspect, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Akaltara /respondent No.4 has passed impugned order, which is completely perverse, illegal and contrary to law. Hence, it is prayed that this petition may be admitted for hearing. 3 3. In reply, learned counsel for the State submits that in the aforesaid revenue case, notice was served to the petitioner, however, the petitioner failed to appear before the respondent authorities. Consequently, ex-parte order has been passed against him. He further submits that if the order has been passed ex-parte against the petitioner, then he has the remedy of filing a restoration application before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) or alternatively, he may prefer an appeal before the Collector, under Section 44 of the Code 1959. Thus, there is ample efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner, and therefore, this petition is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the impugned Order dated 02.12.2025 (Annexure-P/1) as well as the caste of respondent No.1/her father, in the light of notification dated 04.8.2023, whereby caste ‘Dhanuhar’ and ‘Dhanuwar’ were inserted after ‘Dhanwar’, shows that this aspect has not been considered by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) in the impugned order. Further perusal of the impugned order shows that despite service of notice, the petitioner failed to appear before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Akaltara, consequently, ex-parte order has been passed against him. In such circumstances, the petitioner may file restoration application before Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) for restoration of Revenue Case No.202501065200005/A- 23/2024-25, with a prayer to afford due opportunity of hearing and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law or the petitioner may prefer an appeal under Section 44 of the Code 1959 against impugned Order dated 02.12.2025. Thus, since an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. 4 6. However, liberty is left with the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal/ application before the concerned revenue authority for redressal of his grievance, within 30 days from today. Till then, the effect and operation of impugned order dated 02.12.2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Akaltara Distt. Janjgir-Chapa in Revenue Case No.202501065200005/A-23/2024-25, shall remain stayed. It is further made clear that if the petitioner fails to file appeal/application within the above mentioned stipulated period, this order shall lose its efficacy. 7. With aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. 8. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini