Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE

1 Date:

2025.12.11 +0530

2025:CGHC:60188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6462 of 2025  Santosh Kumar Soni S/o Late Badri Prasad Aged About 66 Years R/o Sonar Para, Sivni, Pali, Tahsil Janjgir, District : Janjgir-

Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Commissioner Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. Collector District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4. Land Acquisition Officer / Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Janjgir Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

5. Tahsildar Tahsil Baloda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6. Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Champa, District :

Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

7. Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department, Janjgir, District :

Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Ramcharan Sahu, Advocate For State/ Respondents : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order On Board

11-12-2025

1) At the very outset, learned State counsel raises objection with regard to maintainability of writ petition stating that petitioner has challenged the order 3.9.2025 (Annexure P/2) which is an order passed in review and in that proceeding, petitioner has sought review of the order dated 9.1.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 44(1) of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Code of 1959’], therefore petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy under Section 44(2) of Code of

1959.

2) In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dispute is with regard to land acquisition, therefore appeal would not lie.

3) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

4) Perusal of the order impugned would show that petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 9.1.2025 passed by Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 44(1) of Code of 1959. Annexure P/2 dated 3.9.2025 is the order passed by Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur whereby application seeking review of the order dated 9.1.2025 has been rejected.

1959. Petitioner instead of filing proceeding before appropriate

authority under Section 44(2) of Code of 1959, has filed this petition.

6) There is no dispute that this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India can hear the case even if the petitioner is having alternate efficacious remedy of appeal or revision under the statute. However, jurisdiction is to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances as carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai & Ors., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, in case of Harbans Lal Sahnia & Anr Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & ors, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 and in case of Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax & others vs. Commercial Steel Limited reported in [(2021) SCC OnLine SC 884. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy of second appeal as provided under Section 44(2) of Code of 1959.

7) Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed reserving liberty with the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy available to him.

8) Registry is directed to return the certified copy of documents after retaining its xerox copy.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

JUDGE A j i n k y a