1 CGHC010283652022 2026:CGHC:41034 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3842 of 2022 1 - Smt. Sukdi Bai W/o Late Dasha Muria Aged About 52 Years R/o Geedam District South Bastar, Dantewara, Chhattisgarh. (Complainant) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dantewara, District South Bastar Dantewara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Additional Collector Dantewara, District South Bastar Dantewara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ghanshyam Singh S/o G.R. Singh Gond R/o Housing Board Colony, Pandit Sundarlal Sharma Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) (Fictitious Party, Dead Issueless) Through The Collector South Bastar, Dantewara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate For State :- Mr. Amit Nayak, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 21.09.2026 2 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has called in question the Appellate Order No. 202009160100039/A-23/2019-2020 dated 21.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional Collector, District South Bastar, Dantewada, in the matter of Smt. Sukdi v. Sri Ghanshyam, arising out of the order dated 08.09.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dantewada, in Revenue Case No. 01/A-23/2014-15, Geedam, Smt. Sukdi v. Sri Ghanshyam Singh. 2. Following reliefs have been prayed:- “10:1. that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order impugned (Ann. P/8). Further prayer is the sale-deed dated 8.9.1972 in favour of fictitious and imaginary name of Ghanshyam Singh son of G. R. Singh may kindly be declared null and void as is fraudulent transaction and pass order to restore the possession of the land in favour the petitioner.” 3. Learned State counsel submits that the proceedings were initiated under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, wherein the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) passed an order against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, which also came to be dismissed, affirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). 3 4. Learned State counsel submits that against the appellate order, the petitioner has directly approached this Court without availing the statutory remedy of revision before the Commissioner under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. It is, therefore, contended that the present petition is not maintainable for non-availing of the efficacious alternative statutory remedy. 5. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the petitioner may be permitted to file an appropriate revision petition against the order passed by the learned Collector before the learned Commissioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions made. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, without entering into the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to file an appropriate revision petition under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, before the learned Commissioner against the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the learned Collector, within a period of 30 days from today. 8. In case such revision petition is filed within the aforesaid period, the learned Commissioner shall consider and decide the same on 4 its own merits, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of its filing. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 10. The present petition is accordingly disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha