-1-

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPC No. 1353 of 2016

Surendra Singh S/o Shri Masru Singh, Aged About 52 Years Caste Rajput, R/o

Manora, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh)

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Secretariat,

Mahanadi Bhawan, Police Station Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur,

(Chhattisgarh)

2. Collector, Office Of The Collectorate, Jashpur, District Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Sub Divisional Officer ( R), Jashpur, District Jashpur, ( Chhattisgarh)

4. Tahsildar, Manora, District Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh)

5. Samiullah Ansari, R/o Village And Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)

6. Smt. Sushma Singh, W/o Shri Suredra Singh, Aged About 46 Years Caste

Rajput, R/o Manora, Tah Manora, Distt. Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)

7. Sabbir Ali, R/o Village Asta, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh)

8. Amiullah, R/o Village Asta, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh)

9. Babulala, R/o Village Asta, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh)

10.Satyendra Singh, R/o Village Asta, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur,

(Chhattisgarh)

11. Raviullah, R/o Village Asta, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh)

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

: Shri Sudeep Verma, Advocate

For State

: Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate

For Respondents No. 5 and 7 to 11 : Shri A.K. Prasad, Advocate

S.B.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Order On Board

06/04/2017

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is

heard finally.

1. By way of reply filed by the respondents, an objection to the maintainability of

the petition has been raised on the ground of existence of alternative remedy of

-2-

filing revision.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that the matter arises out of

an order passed in appeal by the Commissioner in proceedings under the Land

Revenue Code, 1959. He submits that against an order passed in appeal, there

exists an alternative remedy of filing revision before the Board of Revenue, but

the petitioner has bypassed the remedy and filed this petition.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of patent

illegality in the impugned order, the petitioner has filed this petition. He submits

that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and in appropriate

cases, notwithstanding existence of alternative remedy, petitions may be

entertained.

4. It is not in dispute that the matter arises out of proceedings relating to

cancellation of lease of the petitioner. The cancellation has been ordered on the

allegation that the petitioner has obtained lease by practicing fraud. The

impugned order shows that the Commissioner, the appellate authority, has

examined the material on record and has recorded its own finding of facts.

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy the Court that the

order passed by the Commissioner is either without jurisdiction or passed

without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Moreover, there is

no allegation of malafide.

5. It needs no authority for the settled legal position that though alternative remedy

is not a bar to exercise writ jurisdiction by this Court, ordinarily where there

exists an alternative and efficacious remedy, writ Court may not invoke its

jurisdiction. There are certain exceptional cases where the writ Court,

notwithstanding existence of alternative remedy, may be inclined to interfere

with the order under challenge, on the ground of total absence of jurisdiction

and authority under the Law, complete violation of principles of natural justice or

a case of malafide exercise of power.

After going through the contents of the petition, grounds urged in the

petition as also submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find

that any of the aforesaid three grounds ex