Challenge to the Commissioner’s revenue order should be pursued through the available State Government revision.

The petitioners challenged the Collector’s order dated 17 December 2024, which, while deciding their application for confirmation of a registered sale deed, allegedly exceeded the scope of an earlier remand, cancelled an SDO order dated 24 January 2018, deleted their revenue entries, and declared the land to be Government land.

The Commissioner affirmed the Collector’s order on 14 July 2026. The petitioners sought to quash both orders, while the State objected that an alternative remedy was available

Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioners had an alternative remedy of revision before the State Government under Part IV of the Revenue Book Circular.

Whether the Collector’s and Commissioner’s orders were lawful on the merits of the petitioners’ challenge.

The Court relied on the availability of a revision under Part IV of the Revenue Book Circular as an alternative remedy against the Commissioner’s order.

It did not cite any statute, precedent, or other legal principle, and expressed no view on the substantive legality of the impugned orders.

The Court accepted the State’s objection that the petitioners could challenge the Commissioner’s order through revision before the State Government.

It therefore directed the petitioners to pursue that remedy rather than determining whether the Collector had exceeded the scope of remand or whether the impugned orders otherwise suffered from jurisdictional or procedural defects.

It granted the petitioners liberty to file a revision before the concerned State authority within 30 days of receiving a copy of the order and directed that authority to decide the revision within 90 days, in accordance with law.