Writ petition withdrawn with liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 44(1).

The petitioner challenged the order dated 19 September 2025 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Markel, in Case No. 202111150300006/03/A-5/2021-22/A-5.

By that order, the petitioner’s application under Section 89 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, was rejected purportedly in exercise of review jurisdiction under Section 51 of the Code.

The petitioner initially sought quashing of the order and directions for fresh and expeditious adjudication by the revenue authorities.

During the hearing, however, counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 44(1) of the Code before the competent Collector.

The State raised no objection to the request.

The Court applied the statutory appellate remedy under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, permitting an aggrieved party to challenge the revenue authority’s order before the competent Collector.

The petitioner’s underlying application had been made under Section 89, while the impugned order was stated to have been passed in purported exercise of review jurisdiction under Section 51 of the Code.

The Court followed the principle that where an appropriate statutory remedy is available, the writ petitioner may withdraw the writ proceedings and pursue that remedy, without the High Court adjudicating the merits unless necessary.

Since the petitioner expressly chose not to press the writ petition and sought to invoke the statutory appeal under Section 44(1), and the State had no objection, the Court permitted withdrawal of the proceedings with liberty to file an appeal before the competent Collector.

To facilitate effective exercise of that remedy, the Court directed that any appeal filed within ten days from the date of the order should be considered and decided on its own merits and in accordance with law, preferably within sixty days of filing.

The Court deliberately refrained from examining the validity of the Naib Tehsildar’s order or expressing any view on the merits, leaving those matters for independent consideration by the appellate authority.

If filed within ten days from 2 September 2026, the appeal was directed to be decided expeditiously, preferably within sixty days from filing, strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits.

The High Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the dispute.