1 CGHC010376712026 2026:CGHC:42058 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4944 of 2026 1 - Smt. Sarita Ratre W/o Narendra Ratre Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Satnami Mohall Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 2 - Lakhan Lal S/o Charan Lal Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Satnami Mohalla Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt, Sarita Naurang W/o Vikrant Aged About 26 Years D/o Rajaram - R/o Ward No. 1 Satnami Mohalla Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt, Kusum Lata W/o Sarju Ratre Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Satnami Mohalla Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh 5 - Saroj Ratre D/o Sadhuram Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Satnami Mohalla Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh 6 - Ram Narayan S/o Late Tij Ram Aged About 72 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Satnami Mohalla Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt, Sumitra Ratre W/o Dwarika Prasad Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Satnami Mohalla Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh 8 - Moti Lal S/o Late Kirtan Lal Kewat Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Satnami Mohalla Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.09.29 14:47:55 +0530 2 9 - Bhagwat Prasad Ratre S/o Late Ant Ram Aged About 69 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Satnami Mohalla Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh 10 - Angad Lal S/o Bhajanha Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Satnami Mohalla Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh 11 - Smt, Chhat Bai W/o Krishna Jangde Aged About 64 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Satnami Mohalla Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh 12 - Amar Singh S/o Late Ant Ram Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Satnami Mohalla Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh 13 - Duj Bai W/o Shiv Nath Aged About 63 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Satnami Mohalla Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh 14 - Smt, Ramla W/o Karan Sahis Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Satnami Mohalla Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh 15 - Smt, Khushbu Khandey W/o Khem Lal Khandey Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Satnami Mohalla Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh 16 - Shambhu Dayal Khandey S/o Late Munku Ram Khandey Aged About 67 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Satnami Mohalla Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretaryh Department of Revenue And Disaster Management Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissoiner Divisional Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector District Sakti Chhattisgarh 3 4 - Sub Divisional Office Revenue -Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 5 - Tehsildar Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioners : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate. For State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, P.L. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28.09.2026 1. The petitioners have filed the instant petition for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to the petitioners calamity relief cases. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to disburse proper financial assistance/compensation to the petitioners in strict compliance with the actual spot inspection reports and the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular Clause 6(4), Circular dated 01.12.2022, within a stipulated time, in the interest of Justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 24.07.2026 (Annexure P/2) passed by the then Tehsildar, which was not according to spot inspection/panchnama, the arbitrary and meager compensation orders (granting 1,000/- to 1,200/-) to the petitioners, in ₹ ₹ the interest of justice. 10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 4 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the monetary assistance provided by the concerned authorities under the Revenue Book Circular (RBC) is not in accordance with law. It is submitted that, being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that an appeal lies before the higher authority against the order passed by the concerned Tehsildar. Since the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy available to them, they are required to approach the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) by way of an appeal. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering this aspect that learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they will file an appeal before the concerned authorities as provided under Clause 10 read with Clause 6(4) of the Revenue Book Circular, the petitioners are directed to file an appeal before the concerned appellate authority, where the alternative remedy is available to the petitioners. In the interest of justice, if such an appeal is filed, the concerned authority is directed to consider the same and decide the same in accordance with law within 15 days, and thereafter, the appellate authority is directed to consider and decide the appeal in accordance with law within a further period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits 5 of the petitioners’ claim, and the competent authority shall take an independent decision in accordance with law. 5. With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. 6. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju