1 2026:CGHC:17509 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1621 of 2026 1 - Kamladevi Wd/o Late Kamal Shankar Aged About 80 Years R/o Barai Ashram Station Road, Champa, Tehsil Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa, (C.G.) (Non Ap- pellants) 2 - Arun Kumar Upadhyay S/o Late Kamla Shankar Aged About 56 Years R/o Barai Ashram Station Road, Champa, Tehsil Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa, (C.G.) (Non Appellants) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Department Of Revenue And Disaster Man- agement , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector, Janjgir -Champa, C.G. District- Janjgir- Champa, (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa, (C.G.) 4 - Shanti Devi Wd/o Late Shantilal Sharma Aged About 80 Years R/o Barai Ashram Station Road, Champa Tehsil Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa, (C.G.) (Appellants 5 - Amrita Pandey D/o Late Shantilal Sharma Aged About 41 Years R/o Barai Ashram Station Road, Champa Tehsil Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa, (C.G.) (Appellants ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Govt. Adv. AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.04.21 11:14:44 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 16-4-2026 1 The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :- 10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash / set-aside the impugned order dated 5/2/26 and may kindly be pleased to quash the proceedings pending before the SDO (Revenue), Champa in Case No.- 202506061300048/A-26, Year 2024-2025 in the interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the instant case, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to grant the cost of the petition to the petitioners. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners in the interest of justice. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, vide order dated 20-2-2027 passed by the Tahsildar, Champa, name of Arun Kumar Upadhyay/petitioner No. 2 was directed to be added in revenue record along with petitioner No. 1/Kamladevi and Shantilal, husband of 3 respondent No. 4 and father of respondent No. 5. That order dated 20- 2-2017 was challenged before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Champa in Appeal by respondents No. 4 and 5 by filing application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed by the respondent No. 3/ Sub Divisional Officer (revenue), Champa vide order dated 5-2-2026 after 8 years of passing the order dated 20-2-2017 by the Tahsildar, which is completely illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the respondent No. 3/Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has allowed the condonation application filed by the respondents No. 4 and 5 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, though no sufficient reason was assigned by respondents No. 4 and 5 for delay.. Hence, the order dated 5-2-2025 is completely perverse. He also submits that, aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioners by filing revision (Annexure P-4) before the Upper Collector, Janjgir-Champa. Hence, present writ petition may be admitted for hearing. 3 Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State would submit that, since the petitioners have already challenged the impugned order before the Upper Collector by filing revision, therefore this writ petition is not maintainable. 4 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 Having considered the contentions made by learned counsel for the parties, since the petitioners have already challenged the impugned order dated 5-2-2026 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), 4 Champa by filing revision before the Upper Collector, Janjgir-Champa under Section 50 of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 and they have already availed the alternative remedy available to them, hence, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 6 In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of. However, liberty is left with the petitioners to raise all the grounds before the concerned authority. 7 Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge pathak