1 2026:CGHC:8070 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 647 of 2026 1 - Butlu S/o Rainu Aged About 30 Years Caste Muriya R/o Vill Kurenga Tahsil Tokapal, Distt. Bastar C.G. 2 - Rainu S/o Durjan Aged About 55 Years Caste Muriya R/o Vill Kurenga Tahsil Tokapal, Distt. Bastar C.G. ... Petitioners versus 1 - The Collector Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G. 2 - The S.D.O. (Rev) Tah. Tokapal Distt. Bastar C.G. 3 - The Tahsildar, Tah. Tokapal Distt. Bastar C.G. 4 - The Kotwar Vill Kurenga Tah. Tokapal Distt. Bastar C.G. 5 - The General Public Vill Kurenga Tah. Tokapal Distt. Bastar C.G. ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Petitioners : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate. For Resp. No. 1 to 3. : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Govt. Advocate. {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Order on Board 13/02/2026 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that the order passed by res. no. 03 (Annexure P-1) is misconceived, illegal and bad in the eye of law. 2 10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and quash the order passed by res. No. 02 (Annexure P/1) 10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that vide impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 22.01.2026, Naib Tahsildar Tokapal, District Bastar (C.G.) has passed eviction order of the petitioners, whereas, petitioners are in possession over the said land since 30-40 years and even patta has also been granted to them, therefore, he submits that this petition may be admitted for hearing. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits against the impugned order passed by Naib Tahsildar, Tokapal, District Bastar, the petitioner has directly preferred instant writ petition before this Court whereas alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to file appeal under section 44 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth, “Code, 1959”) against the impugned order passed by the Naib Tahildar, therefore, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Since there is already efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner to file appeal before concerned Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) under Section 44 of the Code, 1959 , therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 6. In view of above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as costs. 7. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) amit Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.02.18 11:02:22 +0530 3