Writ Petition Challenging Revenue Mutation Orders Is Inadmissible Where Efficacious Statutory Revisional Remedies Remain Unexhausted

The 44 petitioners, members of a dissolved Society, claimed continued possession of land in Village Sonisilli, Raipur, which was originally leased to the Society

Following previous litigation, the High Court directed the Collector to decide on the land allotment/lease

On 28.04.2026, the Collector passed an order (Annexure P-11) directing revenue authorities to mutate the State Government's name for the subject Khasra numbers

The petitioners challenged this order via a writ petition. The State raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the petitioners bypassed the alternative statutory remedy available under the land revenue statutes

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.

The court applied the principle of "Efficacious Alternative Remedy," which dictates that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not typically be exercised when a specific statutory forum provides adequate relief

the court identified the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code as the appropriate statutory channel

Section 52 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, which empowers the revisional authority to grant interim relief

The court evaluated the State's preliminary objection regarding maintainability. It noted that the dispute stems from a Collector's order regarding land mutation and revenue records

Rather than adjudicating on the merits of the petitioners' right to the land, the court found that the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code provides a specialized hierarchy for such grievances

The court reasoned that since a "revisional remedy" exists before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, the petitioners must exhaust that specialized forum before invoking the High Court's discretionary powers

To protect the petitioners' interests during this transition, the court mandated status quo for a limited 15-day window to allow them to file the revision

The petitioners were granted liberty to file a revision before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, within 15 days. The court ordered the parties to maintain status quo regarding revenue entries for those 15 days, after which the protection would lapse if no revision was filed

It directed the revisional authority to expeditiously decide any application for interim relief under Section 52 of the Code