1 CGHC010195992026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2607 of 2026 Smt. Anjana Khakha W/o Vijay Khakha, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Kunkuri, Tehsil- Kunkuri, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - The Tahsildar Kunkuri, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 3 - Deepshikha Khakha D/o Peshka Khakha Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Tapkara Road Kunkuri, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate with Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 26/09/2026 Heard. 1. The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the Tahsildar, Kunkuri and the Collector, Jashpur, for rectification of Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.09.26 17:23:24 +0530 2 the Revenue Records in the name of the petitioner pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 139/2004. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a decree has been passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 139/2004, holding that the petitioner is the title holder of the suit property, and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dated 06.05.2004 in Civil Suit No. 54-A/2003 was set aside. After the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2026 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 139/2004, the petitioner filed an application on 19.02.2026 before the Tahsildar, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, for correction and mutation of the revenue records. However, for one reason or the other, the revenue proceedings have not been concluded, and vide order dated 24.04.2026, the Collector, Jashpur, called the case from the Court of the Tahsildar, Kunkuri, and it has remained pending before the Collector, Jashpur. Therefore, a direction may be issued to the Tahsildar, Kunkuri, and Collector, Jashpur, to correct the revenue records and mutate the name of the petitioner therein. The petitioner has been litigating since 2004 and, till date, she has not been benefited from the fruits of the decree. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and appropriate direction may be passed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 3 4. True it is that the decree has been passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 139/2004 and, in pursuance thereof, the petitioner has moved her application before the Tahsildar, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, on 19.02.2026. However, from perusal of the order-sheets annexed with the petition, it transpires that the application filed by the petitioner was fixed for passing of the order by the Tahsildar, Kunkuri, on 08.04.2026. However, it was adjourned on the request made by the non-applicants on the ground that they intended to challenge the same before the Higher Forum. Subsequently, vide order- sheet dated 27.04.2026, it transpires that the District Collector, Jashpur, has called for the record of the proceedings pending before the Tahsildar, Kunkuri, and, in pursuance thereof, the record of the case has been sent to the Collector, Jashpur. 5. Since the revenue proceedings have already been initiated by the petitioner for correction and mutation of her name in the revenue records, the petitioner is having a remedy under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, if her name has not been corrected/mutated in the revenue records pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2026 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 139/2004. 6. While invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not inclined to pass any direction to the Collector or Tahsildar to mutate the name of the petitioner pursuant to any judgment and decree passed by the 4 coordinate Bench of this Court. The revenue proceedings are conducted on their own motion, and the concerned revenue authorities are at liberty to pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the petitioner, and by the order passed by this Court, they cannot be compelled, particularly when the petitioner is having an alternative efficacious remedy to pursue her claim before them. Therefore, no direction can be issued. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok