1 2026:CGHC:14033 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1288 of 2026 Balmukund S/o Tulsiram Painkra Aged About 44 Years Caste- Kanwar, Occupa- tion- Cutivator, R/o Village- Kapoo, Tahsil- Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G. At Present R/o Village- Rajpuri, Police Station- Sitapur, Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Sur- guja, C.G. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, The Collector, District- Raigarh, C.G. 2 - The Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G. 3 - The Tahsildar Tahsil- Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G. 4 - The President Maa Dokri Dai Shishu Kalyan Samiti, R/o Village-- Kapoo, Tahsil- Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G. 5 - Shyam Bihari Sharma S/o Ramprasad Aged About 57 Years Caste- Bramhan, R/o Village-- Kapoo, Tahsil- Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G. 6 - Neeraj @ Jhabbu Sharma S/o Mahadev Sharma Aged About 42 Years Caste- Bramhan, R/o Village- Kapoo, Tahsil- Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G. AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.03.25 10:55:45 +0530 2 7 - Vinay Sharma S/o Chhedilal Sharma Aged About 34 Years Caste- Bramhan, R/o Village- Kapoo, Tahsil- Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Adv. For Respondents/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Govt. Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 24-3-2026 1 The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 8-1-2026 passed by the Collector, Raigarh in revenue Case No. 59/A-21/2025-26. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, private respondents No. 4 to 7 have obtained Patta fraudulently in respect of a government land and have started construction over the same, thereby closing the pathway of the house of petitioner, hence, the petitioner filed an application before the Collector, Raigarh for cancellation of Patta, in which, stay was also granted in his favour, subsequently, the impugned order has been passed by the Collector on 9-2-2026 i.e. prior to 2-3- 2026, the date which was fixed for hearing. Therefore, he prays that, this writ petition may be admitted for hearing. 3 Learned counsel for the State submits that, if there is any illegality in the impugned order, there is provision of filing appeal under Section 44 of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short, referred to as ‘CGLRC’). Hence, this writ petition may be disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeal. 3 4 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 Having considered the provision of Section 44 of the CGLRC, which provides provision of appeal against the order passed by the Collector before the Commissioner, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain instant writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file appeal for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law. It is directed that if such an appeal is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be decided expeditiously. 6 With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. 7 Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge pathak