1 2026:CGHC:14023 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2038 of 2020 1 - Karamdeo Singh S/o Late Basudeo Singh Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Baikunthpur, Police Station Trikunda, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Virendra Singh S/o Late Basudeo Singh Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Baikunthpur, Police Station Trikunda, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department Mantralya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Barahnagar, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/03/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restrain the making the Gothan over the petitioners land bearing khasra No.176,177 and 178 in respect of Gram Panchayat Barahnagar, Tahsil Ramanujganj. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authority to register the case and decide their representation which is pending before authority regarding correction of the Kharsra Number, Map and demarcating the land and also correct the 3 Revenue record as per law. 10.4 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioners are the recorded owners and are in continuous possession of agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 301/2, 301/3, 767/2, 767/3, 236/2, 246/2 and part of 6, admeasuring 0.024, 0.672, 0.129, 0.425, 0.227, 0.259 and 1.736 hectares respectively, situated at Village Mahadeopur under the concerned Gram Panchayat; subsequently, upon resurvey, the said lands have been assigned new Khasra Nos. 166, 177 and 178, over which the petitioners continue to remain in peaceful and uninterrupted possession. It is submitted that the father of the petitioners was granted patta/Bhumiswami rights in the year 1951, pursuant to which the petitioners and their predecessors have been cultivating the land and regularly paying land revenue to the State Government. The Revenue Department has also issued Rin Pustika in the name of the petitioners through Patwari Halka No. 13, and further, in the year 1999–2000, a patta was again issued in the name of the petitioners’ father by the competent authority. The grievance of the petitioners arose when they discovered that, without their knowledge or consent, the Khasra numbers of their land had been altered during resurvey proceedings and the land was wrongly recorded in the name of 4 the State Government due to negligence on the part of the revenue अधिकारिोሱ . Upon gaining such knowledge, the petitioners promptly approached the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ramanujganj, seeking correction of the revenue entries, and also filed an application for demarcation before the Tahsildar after depositing the requisite शुल्का. The petitioners have also placed on record the map of the new Khasra numbers, which clearly reflects that Plot Nos. 176, 177 and 178 are the lands in their possession, which they have been cultivating since ancestral times and on which they have sown sesame seeds in the current agricultural season as well. It is further submitted that the State Government of Chhattisgarh has recently introduced the “Godhan Nyay Yojana” with the objective of benefiting farmers and cattle owners, under which there is a proposal to establish a Gothan in the village; however, taking undue advantage of the said scheme, the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Barahnagar is arbitrarily and forcibly attempting to establish the proposed Gothan over the petitioners’ land, which action is wholly illegal and contrary to law, as the petitioners are lawful pattadharis and Bhumiswamis of the land, having been granted rights since 1951 and reaffirmed in 1999–2000. It is thus contended that, without cancellation of the valid patta and title documents, the petitioners cannot be dispossessed nor can their land be acquired in such an arbitrary manner; hence, the present writ petition has been filed seeking 5 appropriate reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for some time seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings as the petitioner is having alternative remedy to raise the issued before the concerned authorities. 4. No objection has been raised from other side. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Leelavathi N. and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 2253, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “35. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, (2024) 6 SCC 579, has held as under: 37. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus: (i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; 6 (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. 38. It has however been clarified that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance.” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further taking into account that their lies efficacious alternative remedy available under the law, however, the petitioner has not availed such remedy as such the possession of the petitioner is required to remain protected until the petitioner approaches the concerned appropriate authority, it is directed that the petitioner shall file an appropriate application before the competent authority concerned within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of 7 this order. 8. With this observation and direction, the writ petitioner is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat