1 CGHC010335582026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1202 of 2026 1 - Meenuram Pujari S/o Devchand Pujari Aged About 72 Years R/o Barsoor, Tahsil Barsoor, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Fagni Pujari W/o Late Maduram Pujari 2 - Sukmati D/o Late Maduram 3 - Premlata D/o Late Maduram Pujari 4 - Chintamani S/o Late Maduram Pujari All are R/o Nayapara Barsoor, Tahsil Barsoor, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Kalabatti W/o Late Jogeshwar Pujari R/o Barsoor, Tahsil Barsoor, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 16.09.2026 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 19.08.2026 passed by the Collector, South Bastar Dantewada (in short, Dantewada) in Revenue Case No.202503950100021/A-6/2024-25 whereby the Second Appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.09.16 16:43:16 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tehsildar Barsoor, District Dantewada has passed an order on 06.05.2024 by which the name of the petitioner was directed to be mutated in the revenue record by invoking the powers under Sections 109 and 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short, the Code). The said order was challenged by the respondents before the SDO(Revenue) Geedam, District Dantewada by filing First Appeal under Section 44(1) of the Code which was decided on 15.01.2025 and thereafter they have filed the Second Appeal before the Collector, Dantewada. The Collector, Dantewada, allowed the Second Appeal filed by the respondents vide order dated 19.08.2026 and the orders passed by the Tehsildar Barsar dated 06.05.2024 and SDO(Revenue) Geedam dated 15.01.2025 are set aside. She would further submit that the subject land was settled in favour of the petitioner vide order passed by Tehsildar, Dantewada dated 04.01.2003. Since the subject land was settled in favour of the petitioner, the names of respondents cannot be mutated as co-sharer of the subject land for which the petitioner is claiming for correction of revenue records and for deletion of name of respondents which was rightly considered by the Tehsildar Barsoor and SDO(Revenue) Geedam, however, without any sufficient reason, the Collector, Dantewada allowed the appeal and set aside the orders passed by Tehsildar and SDO. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the orders passed by Tehsildar Barsoor and SDO (Revenue) Geedam may be restored. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 3 4. In the present petition, the challenge is of the order dated 19.08.2026 passed by the Collector, Dantewada. The Collector, Dantewada, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 44(2) of the Code, with respect to Second Appeal, decided the case by impugned order. Section 46 of the Code provides no appeal against certain orders including the orders passed in Second Appeal. The petitioner is having efficacious statutory alternative remedy of filing Revision under Section 50 of the Code before the Board of Revenue/Commissioner against the order passed by the Collector, Dantewada in Second Appeal. Section 50 of the Code reads as under: “50. Revision. (1) The Board 2[or the Commissioner] or the 3[Commissioner, Land Records] or the Collector or the 4[District Survey Officer) may at any time on its/his motion or on the application made by any party for the purpose of satisfying itself/himself as to legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of any Revenue Officer subordinate to it/him call for, and examine the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by such officer, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit: Provided that- (i) no application for revision shall be entertained- (a) against an order appealable under this Code; (b) against an order of the 3[Commissioner, Land Records] under Section 210, (c) against an order passed in revision by the 2[Commissioner or] the 3[Commissioner, Land Records] in respect of cases under Section 170-B, nor shall any such order be revised by the Board on its own motion; [(ii) An application for revision against any order can be made within a period of 60 days from the date of the order and in computing the period aforesaid, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the said order shall be excluded;] (iii) no order shall be varied or reversed in revision unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of being heard. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)- (i) where proceedings in respect of any case have been commenced by the Board under sub-section (1) no action shall be taken by the 1[Commissioner or] the 2[Commissioner, Land Records] or the Collector or the 3[District Survey Officer) in respect thereof; 4 (ii) where proceedings in respect of any case have been commenced by the 1[Commissioner or] the 2[Commissioner, Land Records] under sub-section (1), no action shall be taken by the Collector or the 3[District Survey Officer] in respect thereof; (iii) where proceedings in respect of any such case have been commenced by the 1[Commissioner,] 2 [Commissioner, Land Records], Collector or 3[District Survey Officer) under sub- section (1), the Board may either refrain from taking any action under this section in respect of such case until the final disposal of such proceedings by the 1[Commissioner or the] 2[Commissioner, Land Records] or the Collector or the 3 [District Survey Officer), as the case may be, or may withdraw such proceedings and pass such order as it may deem fit; (iv) where proceedings in respect of any such case have been commenced by the Collector or the 3[District Survey Officer) under sub-section (1), 1[the Commissioner or] the [Commissioner, Land Records] may either refrain from taking any action under this section in respect of such case until the final disposal of such proceedings by the Collector or the 3[District Survey Officer], as the case may be, or may withdraw such proceedings and pass such order as it may deem fit. Explanation. For the purpose of this section all Revenue Officers shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Board.” 5. Since the petitioner is having efficacious statutory alternative remedy to approach before the Board or Commissioner, as the case may be, by filing Revision against the order passed by the Collector, Dantewada dated 19.08.2026, this court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Collector, Dantewada. 6. Thus, in view of availability of efficacious statutory alternative remedy in favour of petitioner by filing Revision under Section 50 of the Code, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy, if so advised. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder