1 CGHC010309932026 2026:CGHC:36518 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4263 of 2026 1 - Motimani W/o Late Shyam Kartik, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Keshgaon, Tehsil Sonhat, District Korea C. G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur C. G. 2 - Commissioner Sarguja, Sambhag, Ambikapur, District Sarguja C. G. 3 - Collector, District Korea Baikunthpur, C. G. 4 - Tehsildar Sonhat, District Korea, Baikunthpur C. G. 5 - Station House Officer, Police Station Sonhat District Korea C. G. 6 - Shanti Swaroop Tiwari S/o Late Avinash Chandra Tiwari Aged About 79 Years R/o Village Keshgaon, Tehsil Sonhat, District Korea C. G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate For State :- Mr. S.S. Choubey, G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17.08.2026 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- “(A) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing the order dated 30.12.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 in Appeal No. 07/A-39/2023-24 (Annexure P/1) and the order dated 01.06.2026 passed by Respondent No.2 in Review Case No. 202504960100034/A-39/2024-25 (Annexure P/2); (B) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to all the respondent authorities i.e.01 to 05 and call for the records pertaining to the land in dispute is Khasra No. 31 (old Khasra No. 1/17), admeasuring 0.65 hectare, situated at Village- Keshgaon, Tehsil- Sonhat, District- Chhattisgarh ("the suit land"). Korea, (C) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, restoring and giving effect to the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the Collector,Korea and the order dated 14.06.1995 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Sonhat declaring the Petitioner's late husband as Bhoomiswami of the suit land. (D) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to provide adequate police protection to the Petitioner and her family, and to take appropriate legal action against Respondent No.6 and his associates for 3 threatening to forcibly and illegally dispossess the Petitioner from the suit land; (E) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice;” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2024, whereby the patta granted in her favour was cancelled. It is further submitted that the petitioner preferred a review application against the said order, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2026. Being aggrieved by both the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Learned State counsel, at this stage, submits that the present petition is not maintainable, as the matter pertains to cancellation of a patta. It is submitted that, in terms of Part IV of the Revenue Book Circular, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the competent authority for redressal of the grievance. Accordingly, it is contended that the petitioner may be relegated to the said alternative remedy and the present petition be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Having perused the relevant provisions contained in Part IV of the Revenue Book Circular, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the 4 competent State authority challenging the orders dated 30.12.2024 and 01.06.2026 within 15 days from today. The competent authority shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the aforesaid orders passed by the competent authority, there is an apprehension of dispossession and respondent No. 6 is creating obstruction in the petitioner’s possession. A short period of protection is, therefore, sought to enable the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. 7. Considering the aforesaid submissions, 15 days’ time is granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority against the cancellation of the lease/patta. Till expiry of the said period, all parties shall maintain status quo with regard to possession, and no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 8. It is made clear that the protection granted by this order shall remain operative only for a period of 15 days from today. Thereafter, the competent authority shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha