2026:CGHC:1128 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4 of 2026 • Kamleshwar Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri Resham Singh Thakur Aged About 70 Years R/o Purani Basti Korba, Tahsil- Korba, District Korba C.G.

... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

2 - Collector, Korba, Distt. Korba C.G.

3 - Superintendent Of Land Records (Diversion Land Branch) Korba, Distt.

Korba C.G.

4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Korba, Distt. Korba C.G.

5 - Tehsildar, Korba, Distt. Korba C.G.

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order on Board

08.01.2026

1. Heard on admission and also on the objection raised by the State with regard to availability of alternate and efficacious remedy to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated

05.10.2023 passed by the Collector, Korba by which the petitioner's Digitally signed by BHUMIKA BHUMIKAANGARE ANGARE Date:

2026.01.13 +0530 application for paying additional Court fees as per market rate prevailing at the relevant time has been rejected on the count that the application has been filed after lapse of 03 years.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that under Section

165(6) of the Land Revenue Code the order passed by the Collector is final, therefore, there is no alternate and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under the Land Revenue Code as such the instant petition is very much maintainable before this Court.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State would submit Section

44(1) of the Land Revenue Code provides that Save as otherwise provided, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under this Code or rules made thereunder and Section 44(1)(f) provides that if such order is passed by the Collector to the Commissioner thereafter Section 50 also provides for filing of the revision petition, as such, various efficacious remedies are available to the petitioner, therefore, the instant writ petition is not maintainable.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from perusal of Section 165(6) it is quite vivid that the order passed by the Collector is final order, as such the appellate forums are not available, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable which was vehemently objected by learned counsel for the State.

7. To consider the rival submission, it is expedient for this Court to extract Section 44(1) and Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 which reads as under:

"Section 44- Appeal and appellate authorities. (1) Save where it has been otherwise provided, an appeal shall lie from every original order under this Code or the rules made thereunder-

(a) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the Sub-Divisional Officer, whether or not the officer passing the order is invested with the powers of the Collector-to the Sub-

Divisional Officer;

(b) if such order is passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, whether or not invested with the powers of the Collector-to the Collector; (c) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the Settlement Officer-to the Settlement Officer;

(d) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer in respect of whom a direction has been issued under sub-section (3) of Section 12 or sub-section (2) of Section 21-to such Revenue Officer as the State Government may direct;

(e) if such order is passed by a Collector whether exercising the powers of Collector or Settlement Officer, during the currency of the term of settlement-to the [Board of Revenue] [Substituted by Act No. 17 of 2008];

(f) if such order is passed by a Settlement Officer, whether exercising the powers of Settlement Officer or the powers of a Col