AFR (Writ Petition under Articie 227 of Constitution of India) SB: Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr Anurag Dayal Shnvastava counsel forthe petitioner Mr SumIOtwanI counseifortherespondentNo1 ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 12‘“ day of January, 2009) The petitioner has preferred this petition against the order dated 29-12- 2008 passed by the Sub Divisionai'Offrcer (Revenue) and prescribed authority, Tahsii Pandariya, Dist. Kabirdham in Rev. Case No. 5/A-89io7-08 on the ground that since this Court has directed the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) t0 reconsider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with iaw and the case has not been consider d, in'accordance with Iaw. Therefore, this petition is maintainabie. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that this petition is not maintainabie on the ground that under Section 91 of Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swarai Adhinryam, 1993 read wrth Ruie 3 of the CG Panchayats (Appeal and Revrsron) Rules 1995 there is a statutory remedy of appeal against the order of Sub Divrsional Officer. \ HIGH COURT 9F CHHATTISGMH: BILASPUR S1: Writ Petition1227) No. 120 of_ 200$ Petitioner Ramkishun Sahu, aged 42 years, S10. Non-applicah‘ Shri Kaliram Sarpanch: Gram Panchayat: Ruse, Tahsil Pandaria. Distt. Kabirdham CG. Versus Respondents 1. Shri Dilip Kumar KurmL Up-sarpaneh: Gram Panchayat: Ruse, Tahsi! Pandaria, D§ett. Kabirdham CG. 2. The Sub Divisional Officer and ' Prescribed Authority Tahsil — Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham (CG). ,L" $3 3) Normaily the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate emcacious alternative remedy where hierarchy of appears is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction, except When a very strong case is made out for making a departure. (See State of H.P. and others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement and another‘, U.P.state Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S.Pandey and ammef and Secy. U.P. High School & Intermediate Education, Allahabad & another v. H.K.Laf3, r Dhampur Sugar Milis Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others", M,P.State Agra Industries Development Corporation & Ant: v. Jahan Khan5 and Popcorn Entenaimnent and another v, City Industrial Development Corpn. and another with Platinum Entertainment and another v. City industrial Deveiopment Corpn, and anothef, 4) - For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to other alternative forum which may be available to him under the yiijr Raiu provisions of law. Consequently, l.A.No.1 also stands dismissed. sal— ‘ K. Agnimm ‘ Judge , \ Satis" :l z\ l 1 {2003; 6 soc 499 2 (2005) 8 scc 264 - (2007) 2 sac 216 1 4 (2on7) 8 soc 333 5 AIR 2007 SC 3153 6 (2007) 9 sec 593 .