1 2026:CGHC:24271-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 295 of 2026 1 - Arun Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Dhobiram Aged About 46 Years Occupation - Private Teachaer, Resident Of Village Patna P. S. And Tehsil Ramanujnagar, District - Surajpur (C.G.). 2 - Anant Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Dhobiram Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Village Patna P. S. And Tehsil Ramanujnagar, District - Surajpur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaye, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Surajpur District Surajpur (C.G.). 3 - Additional Collector, Surajpur District Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - S D O (R), Surajpur District Surajpur (C.G.). 5 - Area General Manager, SECL, Bishrampur Area, District Surajpur (C.G.). 6 - Manager (Survey), SECL, Bishrampur Area, District Surajpur (C.G.). 7 - Rajkumar W/o Late Avdhesh, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Rai P.S. Bishrampur, Tehsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For State : Shri Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent-SECL : Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.06.18 15:19:10 +0530 2 17.06.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following reliefs: “(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the Collector, Surajpur in revenue case No.202205260100025/B- 121/2021-22; (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to act in accordance to the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 and the provisions of CGLRC in case of error in settlement of the year 1988-89; (iii) That, any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper, and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner in the ends of justice.” 2 The subject matter in brief is that, the petitioners are legal heirs of late Nanku who had two sons namely Chhandu & Jagardev. The property in question i.e., Khasra No.591 was self-acquired property of Chhandu and Jagardev and the old khasra number of khasra No. 591 was 509. The father of the petitioners acquired the land bearing khasra No. 509 through Surguja state settlement in the year 1945-46 along with others khasra Nos 507, 580, 673, 706, 707, 1205, 1208, 1209, 1215, 1462. After death of Chhandu, these lands came into the joint name of Dhobiram & Jagardev. Dhobiram had three sons and one daughter and Jagardev had one son and two daughter. The elder son of Dhobiram namely Avdhesh died thereafter his wife Rajkumari claimed her share in the above-mentioned properties and separate share to Rajkumari 3 was given in the year 2004. Again, in the year 2012 the properties remaining after giving share to Rajkumari was partitioned between Dhobiram and Jagardev. There was absolutely no disputes between the parties with resgard to said partition. The disputed land old khasra No. 509 having new khasra No. 591 was also divided between the Legal heirs of Dhobiram and Jagardev in which khasra No. 591/1 came in share of petitioners who are sons of Dhobiram, Khasra No. 591/2 came in share of Rajkumari & Vikesh, the legal heirs of Late Avdhesh i.e. son of Dhobiram, and Khasra No. 591/3 fell in share of Jagardev and his Legal heirs. In a land acquisition proceeding drawn in the year 2006, all the lands belonging to the petitioners were subjected to the acquisition and the compensation was paid to the petitioners for their respective shares as per partition. The compensation in the land acquisition proceeding for disputed old khasra No. 509 and new khasra No. 591, later on after partition were divided as khasra 591/1, 591/2, 591/3 were duly paid to the Legal heirs of Dhobiram and Jagardev. However, due to family dispute, Rajkumari W/o late Avdhesh, who was son of Dhobiram lodged a complaint against the other legal heirs of Dhobiram and Jagardev namely Arun, Anant, Ghunsi (now dead) and Maniram. This complaint was registered as revenue case No. 202205260100025/B121/2021-22. The main allegation in the said complaint is that land bearing khasra No.509 was having rakba 75 Dismil only, however, at the time of renumbering in the year 1988-89, the old khasra No.509 became 591 and its old rakba 75 dismil became new rakba as 3.32 Acre. which was erroneous and therefore 4 compensation awarded to the petitioners in acquisition of land bearing khasra No.591 is also illegal. 3 On the said complaint in the above revenue proceedings, an order dated 02.07.2025 was passed to constitute a Committee comprising of Additional Collector as President, one officer from SECL and SDO (Revenue) as members and 15 days time was granted to the said committee to submit final report. In compliance of the same, a joint enquiry report was submitted before the Collector Surajpur on 23.01.2026, on the basis of which, the Collector has passed the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 and directed the SECL to register FIR against the petitioners and to start recovery proceeding against them. Hence this petition. 4 We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records annexed with the case. 5 Perusal of records and order under challenge would reveal that it is a civil dispute between the parties alleging fraud to have been committed by the petitioners, leading to file complaint case by the opposite side, in which, after full fledged enquiry by a committed constituted, found the petitioners guilty and accordingly vide order impugned the Collector has directed the respondent-SECL to register FIR against the petitioners and also to start recovery proceeding of compensation awarded to them in compensation proceeding. 6 In the opinion of this court, the present petition is not maintainable as against the order passed by the Collector in a revenue case, the petitioners have efficacious statutory alternative remedy of Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 44 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. It 5 is well settled law that when there is a statutory efficacious alternative remedy available to a person, normally the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked. 7 Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable in view of availability of efficacious statutory alternative remedy. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder