1 2026:CGHC:14362 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5240 of 2021 Sirsan Nageshwar Rao S/o Late Shri S. Batkaiya, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Darapara, Bijapur, Tahsil And District Bijapur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Collector, Bijapur, District Bijapur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Tahsildar, Bijapur, District Bijapur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - P. Rakesh Kumar S/o P. Sushil Kumar, R/o Main Road, Near Collectorate Office, Bijapur, Tahsil And District Bijapur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bijapur, District Bijapur (Chhattisgarh) 6 - The Divisional Forest Officer, Investigation And Extension Center, Social Vaniki, Forest Division, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocates For State/respondents No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 : Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 25.03.2026 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred assailing the impugned order dated 29.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.03.28 16:30:03 +0530 2 Collector, Bijapur, whereby, in ex parte proceedings conducted in the absence of the petitioner, the lease granted in favour of Sirsan Nageshwar Rao, in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 128/29 admeasuring 0.020 hectare situated at village Bijapur, has been cancelled on the ground that the same was issued without jurisdiction and in violation of the applicable legal provisions, particularly in view of the constitution of Bijapur as a Nagar Panchayat prior to the date of grant of lease; and further directions have been issued to record the said land in the name of the State Government, initiate action against the petitioner under the relevant Civil Services Rules. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby quashing the impugned order dated 29.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive step against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 29.11.2021 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the patta granted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled and directions have been issued for initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially working as a daily wager and was regularized as an Untrained Forest Guard on 09.07.2007, whereas the patta in question was issued thereafter on 10.01.2008 by the competent authority, in respect of Abadi land forming part of Khasra No.128, admeasuring 0.05 hectare situated at Bijapur, over which the petitioner was in possession since prior to 1990. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has constructed a residential house on the said land, which is in occupation of his son for the last several years. 3. Learned counsel further submitted that the proceedings for cancellation of patta have been initiated at the instance of respondent No.4, who, along with others, had purchased land adjoining Khasra No.128 and, due to excess and illegal sale of land in Khasra No.156, is attempting to encroach upon the petitioner’s land. On such application, respondent No.2 initiated proceedings and issued notice to the petitioner, to which a detailed reply was submitted. It is also submitted that without considering the reply of the petitioner and without examining the relevant records pertaining to issuance of patta, respondent No.2 has 4 illegally exercised suo motu revisional powers and passed the impugned order. 4. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim protection vide order dated 16.12.2021, whereby it was directed that “there shall be a stay on the effect and operation of the impugned order till the next date of hearing,” and the said interim order continues to remain in force. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 jointly submit that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available to him before the competent authority, i.e., the Commissioner by filing of appeal/revision under Section 44(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘Act of 1959’) and that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has directly approached this Court without first challenging the order of the Collector before the concerned Commissioner. 6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has an efficacious and adequate alternative statutory remedy available under the relevant provisions of law to assail the impugned order before the competent appellate authority, i.e., the Commissioner by filing an appeal/revision under the Act of 1959. It 5 is not in dispute that the impugned order has been passed by the Collector and that the statutory scheme provides a specific remedy of appeal against such an order. 7. It is further evident that the petitioner, without exhausting the aforesaid alternative remedy, has directly invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The law in this regard is well-settled that when an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available, the writ petition ought not to be entertained, unless exceptional circumstances are made out, such as violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or manifest arbitrariness. In the present case, no such exceptional ground has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference by this Court at this stage. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Leelavathi N. and others v. State of Karnataka and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2253, while dealing with the issue relating to maintainability of the writ petition, has held as under :- “27. The principles of law which emerge are that: 27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well. 27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions 6 placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. 27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. 27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. 27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. 27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise 7 of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with. 28. These principles have been consistently upheld by this Court in Chand Ratan v. Durga Prasad [Chand Ratan v. Durga Prasad, (2003) 5 SCC 399], Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot [Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot, (1974) 2 SCC 706] and Rajasthan SEB v. Union of India [Rajasthan SEB v. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 632] among other decisions." (Emphasis Supplied) 35. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, (2024) 6 SCC 579, has held as under: "37. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus: (i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. 8 38. It has however been clarified that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance." (Emphasis Supplied) 36. A careful perusal of the aforesaid judgments leads us to the conclusion that where an efficacious alternate remedy is available, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters falling squarely within the domain of the Tribunals.” 9. Reverting to the facts of the case in the light of the above judicial precedents, it is quite apparent that the impugned order has been passed by the Collector in exercise of powers under the statute for which a specific and efficacious remedy of appeal/revision is available before the Commissioner and the petitioner, without availing the said statutory remedy, has directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Further, this Court does not find any exceptional circumstance, such as patent lack of jurisdiction, manifest arbitrariness, or gross violation of principles of natural justice, warranting interference at this stage. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction 9 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. However, in the interest of justice, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail the appropriate statutory remedy by approaching the concerned Commissioner by filing an appeal/revision within a period of one month from today. 11. It is further directed that in the event the petitioner prefers such an appeal/revision within the aforesaid period, the concerned Commissioner shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the affected parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of filing of such appeal/revision. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is also directed that till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all issues are left open to be considered by the appellate authority. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh