1 2026:CGHC:19811 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2050 of 2026 1 - Bhikhu Prasad Soni S/o Late Pancham Ram Soni Aged About 80 Years Caste Sonar, Occu- Business Mohalla Mayapur, Near Kotwali Police Station, Ambikapur Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Surguja Division Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Additional Collector Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Nazul Officer Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Vinay Soni S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Soni Aged About 62 Years Caste Sonar Occu- Business R/o Mohalla Mayapur, Near Kotwali Police Station, Ambikapur Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Sanjay Soni S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Soni Aged About 55 Years Caste Sonar Occu- Business R/o Mohalla Mayapur, Near Kotwali Police Station, Ambikapur Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 7 - Gopal Soni S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Soni Aged About 50 Years Caste Sonar Occu- Business R/o Mohalla Mayapur, Near Kotwali Police Station, Ambikapur Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) 8 - Navin Soni S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Soni Aged About 48 Years Caste Sonar Occu- Business R/o Mohalla Mayapur, Near Kotwali Police Station, Ambikapur Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) 9 - Saket Soni S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Soni Aged About 43 Years Caste Sonar Occu- Business R/o Mohalla Mayapur, Near Kotwali Police Station, Ambikapur Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the Case No: Revenue Appeal No. 202001960100016/A- 68/2020-21 from Commissioner Surguja Division Ambikapur (CG), along with the records of the Additional Collector and the Nazul Officer relating to the present case. 3 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned the order dated 12.02.2026 (ΑΝNEXURE P/1) passed by respondent no. 2 in Revenue Appeal No. 202001960100016/A-68/2020-21 and consequently quash the order dated 27.11.2019 (ΑΝNEXURE-P/2) passed by the respondent no. 3 in Revenue Appeal No. 04/A-6/2017- 2018, and order dated 25.01.2017 (ANNEXURE P/3), passed in Revenue Case No. 48/A-6/2016-2017 by respondent no.4. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to correct and mutate the name of the petitioner along with respondent no. 5 to 9 in revenue records of land situated at Ambikapur District Surguja Nazul Plot bearing Khasra No. 1706/3 Rakba 0.06½ dismal, in the larger interest of justice. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned orders dated 12.02.2026 and 27.11.2019 and condone the delay in filling of appeal before the Additional Collector and further direct the respondent no. 3 to decide the appeal of the petitioner on its own merits, in accordance with law. 4 10.5 Any other relief (s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, are that the present case arises out of mutation proceedings initiated by respondents No. 5 to 9 under Sections 109 and 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code in respect of Nazul land bearing Khasra No. 1706/3 situated at Ambikapur. The said respondents claimed themselves to be the legal heirs of Late Jagdish Soni and sought mutation of their names in the revenue records after the death of their grandmother, Late Maheshwari. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the elder son of Late Maheshwari and the real brother of Late Jagdish Soni, and thus also a legal heir. However, during the mutation proceedings, his name was deliberately omitted from the family tree and the proceedings conducted before the Nazul Officer. Consequently, the Nazul Officer passed an order dated 25.01.2017 directing mutation in favour of respondents No. 5 to 9. The petitioner submits that he had no knowledge of the said mutation proceedings or the order passed therein and came to know about it subsequently. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal before the competent authority along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. However, the said application under Section 5 was rejected and the appeal was 5 dismissed on the ground of delay. The second appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 12.02.2026, affirming the earlier order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been illegally deprived of his rightful share in the property due to fraudulent omission of his name from the mutation proceedings conducted by the Nazul Officer. It is contended that the delay in filing the appeal occurred solely on account of lack of knowledge of the mutation order, as the petitioner was never made a party to the original proceedings. It is further submitted that the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay has been erroneously rejected by the authorities without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the aspect of fraud and non-impleadment of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that since the application under Section 5 has been dismissed and the appeals have also been rejected, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. However, upon query from this Court, learned counsel fairly submits that an alternative remedy is available under the law by approaching the concerned Board of Revenue against the impugned orders. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy available under the 6 relevant provisions of the law by approaching the competent Board of Revenue. It is contended that without exhausting such remedy, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner, therefore, ought to be relegated to avail the said alternative remedy in accordance with law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From the submissions made, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is assailing the orders passed by the revenue authorities whereby his appeal has been dismissed primarily on the ground of limitation, including rejection of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is also fairly conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner before the competent Board of Revenue. In view of the availability of such alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the Board of Revenue by filing appropriate proceedings challenging the orders passed by the concerned Commissioner and Collector, whereby the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. In the event such proceedings are filed, the Board of Revenue is directed to 7 consider and decide the same in accordance with law, expeditiously. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge