1 2026:CGHC:25615 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3041 of 2026 Biran Bai Nishad W/o Dhannu Nishad Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Hatbanja, Gram Panchayat- Birutola, Post And Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, C.G. 2 - The Collector- Chhuikhadan, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai C.G. 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gandai-Chhuikhadan, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai C.G. 4 - The Tahsildar, Chhuikhadan, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai C.G. 5 - The Halka Patwari No. 12, Hatbanja, Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate For State/Respondents : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Deputy Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 23.06.2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 11.06.2026 passed by the Tahsildar, Chhuikhadan in Revenue Case YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.06.23 17:24:30 +0530 2 No.B/121/202605290800028 whereby the petitioner's claim for issuance of duplicate Kisan Pustika/Rin Pustika in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 313/2, situated at Village Hatbanja, Tehsil Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, has been rejected. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondents No. 4 issued to duplicate Kisan Pustika (Farmer's Booklet). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief or pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a simple rural agriculturist and landless person whose entire livelihood depends upon agricultural activities. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted a lease for a period of 30 years by the competent authority on 18.03.1999 in respect of land bearing Khasra No.313/2 and thereafter a Kisan Pustika/Rin Pustika was issued in his favour. Subsequently, the duplicate Kisan Pustika bearing Serial No.241112 was lost, due to which the petitioner is facing serious hardship in obtaining agricultural loans and carrying out agricultural transactions through cooperative societies and 3 banks. He further submits that the petitioner had initially submitted an application dated 01.12.2025 before the Tahsildar, Chhuikhadan seeking issuance of a duplicate Kisan Pustika. Since no action was taken on the said application, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.2119 of 2026. This Court vide order dated 30.04.2026 directed the concerned Tahsildar to consider and decide the petitioner's application and issue duplicate Rin Pustika in accordance with law within a period of one month. 3. It is further argued that pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation on 11.05.2026. Thereafter, Revenue Case No.B/121/202605290800028 was registered and ultimately decided by order dated 11.06.2026. He also submits that while deciding the matter, the Tahsildar has rejected the petitioner's claim by recording that the name of the petitioner is not entered in the revenue records as Bhumiswami; that the land in question is recorded in the revenue records as Government Grass Land (Charnoi/Government Land); and that no order of any competent Court or authority has been produced directing recording of the petitioner's name over the said land. On the said basis, the Tahsildar concluded that a Rin Pustika/Kisan Pustika cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid Khasra number. It is lastly submitted that the order passed by the Tahsildar is arbitrary and contrary to the material available on 4 record. However, he fairly submits that at this stage the petitioner would be satisfied if liberty is granted to avail the statutory remedy available against the impugned order and a direction is issued to the appellate authority to consider and decide the appeal expeditiously. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the Tahsildar has passed a reasoned order after considering the revenue records and the status of the land in question. It is further submitted that the order dated 11.06.2026 is appealable under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and, therefore, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy before the competent appellate authority. Learned State Counsel submits that in view of the availability of such alternative remedy, the present writ petition may not be entertained on merits. However, if the petitioner prefers an appeal before the competent authority, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. From perusal of the record, it appears that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2119 of 2026 dated 30.04.2026, the Tahsildar, Chhuikhadan has considered the petitioner's application and has passed a final order on 11.06.2026. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ 5 petition is essentially directed against the correctness and legality of the said order. 7. It is well settled that where an order has been passed by a statutory authority and the statute provides an effective appellate remedy against such order, ordinarily the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not required to be invoked unless exceptional circumstances are made out. In the present case, the impugned order dated 11.06.2026 has been passed by the Tahsildar while exercising powers under the revenue laws and the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal before the competent authority, namely, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), against the said order. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and without entering into the merits of the rival contentions raised by the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should first avail the statutory remedy available under law. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to prefer an appeal against the order dated 11.06.2026 before the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the event such appeal is preferred within the aforesaid period, the appellate authority shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other affected parties, by passing a reasoned and speaking order as 6 expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of filing of the appeal. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim, the validity of the lease, entitlement to issuance of Kisan Pustika/Rin Pustika, the nature of the land in question, or the correctness of the findings recorded by the Tahsildar in the impugned order dated 11.06.2026. All questions of fact and law are left open to be urged before the appellate authority. 10. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh