Patta cancellation challenge relegated to the competent authority under the Revenue Book Circular.

The petitioner, Motimani, challenged the order dated 30 December 2024 passed by the Commissioner, Sarguja Division, in Appeal No. 07/A-39/2023-24, whereby the patta concerning Khasra No. 31 (old Khasra No. 1/17), measuring 0.65 hectare at Village Keshgaon, was cancelled.

She also challenged the dismissal of her review application by order dated 1 June 2026.

The petitioner relied upon the order dated 14 June 1995 of the Naib Tehsildar declaring her late husband to be the bhoomiswami and the Collector’s order dated 12 October 2023.

She further alleged an apprehension of forcible dispossession and sought police protection against Respondent No. 6.

The State opposed maintainability on the ground that Part IV of the Revenue Book Circular provided an efficacious alternative remedy.

Whether the writ petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner’s patta was maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available under Part IV of the Revenue Book Circular?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim protection against dispossession while availing the alternative remedy?

The Court applied the principle that a writ petition may ordinarily be declined where an efficacious alternative statutory or administrative remedy is available, particularly in matters concerning cancellation of revenue rights or pattas.

Part IV of the Revenue Book Circular was treated as providing a remedy before the competent State authority against the orders dated 30 December 2024 and 1 June 2026.

The Court also applied the discretionary principle of preserving the existing possession and restraining coercive action for a limited period to enable the aggrieved party to pursue the alternative remedy.

The Court accepted the State’s objection that the petitioner should first approach the competent authority under Part IV of the Revenue Book Circular rather than invoke the writ jurisdiction directly against the cancellation of the patta.

Without adjudicating the validity of the impugned orders on merits, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to challenge both orders before the competent State authority within fifteen days.

Considering the petitioner’s apprehension of dispossession and alleged obstruction by Respondent No. 6, the Court preserved the status quo concerning possession and prohibited coercive steps during that limited period.

It granted the petitioner fifteen days from 17 August 2026 to approach the competent State authority under Part IV of the Revenue Book Circular against the orders dated 30 December 2024 and 1 June 2026.

Until expiry of that period, all parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding possession and no coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner.

The protection was expressly limited to fifteen days, after which the competent authority was at liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.