1 CGHC010251472022 2026:CGHC:29521 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3522 of 2022 1 - Ramanand Patel S/o Latel Patel Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Village And Post Jheet, P.H. No. 17, Revenue Circle Bhilai - 3, Tahsil Patel, District Durg Chhattigarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretaty, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tahsildar, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sukhchand S/o Shri Suddhu Satdnami Aged About 67 Years Resident Of Village And Post Jheet, P.H. No. 17, Revenue Circle Bhilai- 3, Tahsil Patal, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13.07.2026 1. Learned State counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present petition, contending ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the competent Tehsildar. It is submitted that, without availing of the said remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court. Therefore, in view of the availability of the statutory appellate remedy, the present petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of non- exhaustion of the alternative remedy available under law. 2. In view of the preliminary objection raised by the learned State counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail the alternative statutory remedy before the competent authority. It is further submitted that, since the petitioner had bona fide approached this Court directly, some delay may have occurred in preferring the statutory appeal. Therefore, it is prayed that the competent appellate authority be directed to consider the question of limitation, if raised, and decide the same in accordance with law while considering the appeal. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, particularly the availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail the remedy of appeal before the competent appellate authority, if so advised. 3 4. It is further observed that, if the petitioner prefers an appeal before the competent appellate authority along with an application for condonation of delay, if any, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merits, in accordance with law, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had bona fide pursued the present proceedings before this Court. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the case. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena