1 2026:CGHC:15617 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1267 of 2021 Sukhnandan Mahilang, S/o Late Shri Siyaram Mahilang, Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Sonpairi, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Collector Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Naib Tahsildar, Mandir Hasaud Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rajkumar Tandan, S/o Shri Rungiram Tandan, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Paragaon, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 06.04.2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.06 18:07:50 +0530 2 05.01.2021 (Annexure P-1) and issue a writ order or direction to the respondent no. 1 and 2 to register the name of the petitioner on the suit land according to the decree of the National Lok Adalat dated 08.12.2018 (Annexure P-4) within stipulated period as given by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the respondent No.2/Naib Tahsildar is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is contended that the petitioner’s title over the land bearing Khasra No. 238/1 (old), renumbered as Khasra No. 382, area 0.30 hectare, situated at Village Sonpairi, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, already stands conclusively determined by a competent civil court. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 culminated in a lawful compromise, which was duly recorded and resulted in an award dated 08.12.2018 passed by the National Lok Adalat, declaring the petitioner’s title over the suit land. The said award has attained finality and is executable as a decree of a civil court; therefore, the revenue authorities were bound to give effect to the same. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 has exceeded its jurisdiction in re-examining the nature of the land and recording a finding that the land is Government land falling under grazing category, which is 3 impermissible in law. Once the title has been adjudicated and declared by a competent forum, the revenue authority cannot sit in appeal over such decree or refuse mutation on grounds contrary to the judicial determination. The reliance placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 28.01.2011 is wholly misconceived, as the said judgment has no application to a case where title has already been settled through a judicial decree/award. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, non-application of mind and jurisdictional error, and is liable to be set aside. The respondents be directed to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in compliance with the award dated 08.12.2018 passed by the National Lok Adalat, in the interest of justice. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious and alternative statutory remedy. It is contended that the petitioner, if aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the respondent No.2/Naib Tahsildar, has a remedy of filing an appeal/revision before the competent revenue authority in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, instead of directly invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed after due consideration of the revenue records and the report of the Halka Patwari, which clearly indicate that the land in 4 question is recorded as Government land under grazing category. The petitioner has an adequate opportunity to challenge the said findings before the appropriate appellate forum, where disputed questions of fact can be properly adjudicated. Therefore, it is submitted that in view of the settled principle of law that writ jurisdiction ought not to be exercised when an effective alternative remedy is available, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy available under law. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon due consideration of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition does not warrant interference at this stage in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy to the petitioner. 5. It is a settled principle of law that where an effective remedy is available under the statute, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be invoked. In the case at hand, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the respondent No.2/Naib Tahsildar, which is amenable to challenge before the competent appellate/revisional authority under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. The issues raised by the petitioner involve questions which can appropriately be examined by the said authority. 5 6. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate statutory remedy before the competent authority, in accordance with law. 7. It is made clear that all contentions of the parties are kept open to be raised before the competent authority, which shall consider and decide the same independently, strictly in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh