1 CGHC010274512026 2026:CGHC:32163 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3743 of 2026 1 - Besahu Patel S/o- Late Dev Singh Patel, Aged About 68 Years Occupation- Farmer, R/o- Village Lokhandi, Ward No. 01, Tehsil - Sakri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Collector, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.). 3 - The Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 4 - The Tehsildar, Sakri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 “a. Call for the records pertaining to the case of the Petitioner, b. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to correct the clerical omission and update the active Revenue/Online Records of Village Lokhandi (P.H. No. 54) to reflect the complete and original 4.98 Acres for Khasra No. 424, in strict alignment with the Misal Bandobast and the actual physical boundaries established in the SDO's Panchnama report. c. Quash and modify the order dated 03.07.2026 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Takhatpur in case No. 202511071000034/A6/2025-26 to the extent that it failed to correct the area of the land from 3.98 acres to 4.98 acres. d. Pass any other relief/order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an alternative statutory remedy of filing a first appeal against the order dated 03.07.2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Takhatpur, is available under the relevant provisions of law. However, he submits that the present writ petition has been preferred solely on the ground that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not afforded an adequate and effective opportunity of hearing before the said order came to be passed. It is further 3 submitted that the competent authority also failed to properly consider the material and records available on record while passing the impugned order. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the grievance regarding denial of opportunity of hearing as well as the alleged non-consideration of the record are matters which can effectively be raised before the competent appellate authority in the statutory appeal. He further submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Takhatpur, had the requisite jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and, therefore, no jurisdictional error has been committed warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It is, accordingly, submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that, since an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, it would be appropriate for him to avail the same. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the grounds available to him before the appellate authority, including the contention that the impugned order was passed without affording him adequate opportunity of hearing and without due consideration of the relevant records and documents. The appellate authority shall consider all such grounds independently and in accordance with law. 4 5. Accordingly, the petitioner is relegated to avail the statutory remedy of filing a first appeal before the competent appellate authority. If such an appeal is preferred within the period prescribed under law, or along with an application for condonation of delay, if required, the appellate authority shall consider and decide the same on its own merits, including the grounds urged by the petitioner regarding violation of the principles of natural justice and non-consideration of the material on record, by passing a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law. 6. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat