Article 227 jurisdiction is declined where an efficacious revision remedy under Section 50 is available.

The petitioner challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the order dated 19 August 2026 passed by the Collector, South Bastar Dantewada, in Revenue Case No. 202503950100021/A-6/2024-25, whereby the Collector allowed the respondents’ second appeal and set aside the orders of the Tehsildar, Barsoor, dated 6 May 2024 and the SDO (Revenue), Geedam, dated 15 January 2025.

The Tehsildar had directed mutation of the petitioner’s name in the revenue records under Sections 109 and 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (“the Code”).

The petitioner relied on an earlier order dated 4 January 2003 by which the subject land was allegedly settled in his favour, and contended that the respondents’ names could not be recorded as co-sharers.

The respondents had challenged the Tehsildar’s order before the SDO by filing a first appeal under Section 44(1) of the Code and thereafter preferred a second appeal before the Collector.

Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 against the Collector’s order passed in second appeal under Section 44(2) of the Code, when a statutory revision under Section 50 of the Code is available?

Whether the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory remedy of revision before the Board of Revenue or the competent Commissioner instead of directly invoking Article 227 jurisdiction?

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction subject to settled principles governing judicial restraint where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists.

Section 44(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 governs second appeals before the Collector, while Section 46 bars further appeal against specified orders, including an order passed in second appeal.

Section 50 provides a revisional remedy before the Board, Commissioner, Commissioner of Land Records, Collector, or other competent revenue authority for examining the legality, propriety, or regularity of an order passed by a subordinate Revenue Officer; the provision also prescribes a limitation period of 60 days and requires notice and an opportunity of hearing to affected parties.

Consequently, where an order of the Collector in second appeal is amenable to revision under Section 50, the High Court may decline to exercise Article 227 jurisdiction in favour of the statutory remedy.

The Court did not examine the merits of the petitioner’s claim regarding the 2003 land settlement, mutation, or the respondents’ alleged co-sharer status.

It noted that the impugned order had been passed by the Collector while exercising second-appellate jurisdiction under Section 44(2) of the Code.

Since Section 46 excluded a further appeal against such an order, but Section 50 expressly provided a revisional remedy before the Board or Commissioner, the petitioner had an efficacious statutory alternative remedy.

In view of that remedy, the Court considered it inappropriate to exercise its discretionary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 at that stage.

The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to avail that statutory remedy, if so advised, without deciding the merits of the dispute concerning mutation or title to the subject land.