Writ petition was disposed of, directing recourse to statutory revision under Section 50.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 21 July 2022 passed by the Additional Collector, South Bastar, Dantewara, which affirmed the order dated 8 September 2016 of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dantewara, in proceedings under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

The petitioner sought quashing of the appellate order, declaration that the sale deed dated 8 September 1972 in favour of Ghanshyam Singh was null and void, and restoration of possession.

The State objected that the petitioner had directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court without availing the statutory revision remedy before the Commissioner under Section 50 of the Code.

The petitioner thereafter requested permission to pursue the statutory revision remedy.

1. Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy of revision under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, against the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Collector.

2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file a revision petition before the Commissioner against the impugned revenue orders.

The Court applied Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, under which the underlying revenue proceedings had been initiated, and Section 50 of the Code, which provides a statutory revision remedy before the Commissioner against the relevant revenue orders.

The Court followed the principle that a writ petition may ordinarily be declined where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available and has not been exhausted.

Since the petitioner accepted the availability of the revision remedy and sought permission to invoke it, the Court refrained from examining the merits.

The impugned order was an appellate order passed by the Additional Collector in proceedings arising under Section 170-B of the Code.

Section 50 provided the petitioner with an available statutory revision remedy before the Commissioner.

In view of the petitioner’s failure to first pursue that remedy, and her express request for permission to file a revision, the High Court considered it appropriate not to exercise writ jurisdiction on the merits.

The Court therefore directed the petitioner to approach the Commissioner and required the Commissioner to adjudicate the revision in accordance with law, without being influenced by the High Court’s order.

The petitioner was directed to file an appropriate revision petition under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, against the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the Additional Collector within 30 days.

If filed within that period, the Commissioner was directed to decide the revision on its own merits, expeditiously and preferably within three months of filing.

The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.