^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (0 No. 3445 of_2009 Petitioner Ku Reeta Dey, d/o Asit Baran Dey, aged about 27 years, r/o Aniiapuma Vihar Ganesh Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Versus Respoadents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Chliattisgarh. State of Chliattisgarh, Through - the Collector, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), District BUaspur, BUaspur, Chhattisgarh. Rajesh Yelukar, s/o aged about r/o ViUage Shaukar Nagar, Torwa, Bilaspur, Tahsil aad District Bilaspiir, Chliatdsgarh. Mohd Rafeek, s/o Mohd. Uinar, aged about 50 yars, Gansh Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsfl aad District BUaspur, Chliatdsgarh. Village Panchayat Mahraand, through fhe ViBage Panchayat Mahinand, TahsU and District Bflaspur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri A. V. Shridhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for fhe respondents No. 1 aad 2. O R DE R fOrali (Passed on this 15th day ofJuly, 2009) Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition, impugiung the order dated 30.3.2009 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur ia Revenue Case No. 1164/B-121/2007-08 (Rajesh Yelukar Vs. Mohd. Rafique). The brieffacts, ia nutsheU, necessary for disposal ofthis petition, are that the respondent No. 3 Rajesh Yelukar inade an appUcation before fhe Sub Divisional Of&cer (Revenue), BUaspur fhat fhe respondent No.4 Rafique has illegaUy consta-ucted a colony 011 fhe laad haviag Khasra No. 7, area 3,54 acre at vfflage - Malunand, Tahsil & District - Bislaspur and sold plots to 56 ^£ss--, ^r'~J^ ^'1°**" <•? *v\ ^fe j', /,••' persons. By fhe iaipugned order dated 30.3.2009 (Annexure P/1) the Sub Divisional 0£5cer(Revenue), Bilaspur declared fhe sale deed of 56 plots as nuU aad void and imposed a fine of Rs. 3,54,000/- upon ftie respondent No.4. The petitioner, beiag one offhe ptu-chasers ofthe plots ia the colony, has ffled this petition for quashiag ofthe impugned order dated 30.3.2009. 3. It appears that fhe unpugaed order dated 30.3.2009 has been passed by fhe Sub Divisional OfBcer (Revenue), Bilaspur under the provisions of Section 61 - D to 61-G of Chapter VI-A of the Chhattisgarh Paachayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'Adhiaiyani, 1993t, which provides for puiustunent for illegal colonization, puiushinent for abateiuent of offence of illegal construction, traasfer ofplots ia area ofitlegal diversion ofillegal colonization to be void aiid fi)rfeiture of fhe land iavolved ia iUegal coloaization. Section 91 of fhe Adhuuyani, 1993 provides for appeal and revision agaiast fhe orders or proceedings of a Paachayat aad other aufhorities. Rule 3 (a) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal aad Revision) Rules, 1995 provides fhat iu the case of au order passed by the Sub-DivKional Of&cer under aay provision of the Act or rules or byelaws uiade fhereunder, aa appeal sliaU Ue to fhe CoUector. 4. The petitioner, without nvailing fhe altemative appeUate statutory reinedy available to her uader law, has ffled this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The ' Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. S. Rashid and Son v. Income tax Investigation Coaimissioa and others1, observed ttiat "fhe remedy provided for ia Ardcle 226 of the Constitution is a 1AIR 1954 S.C. 207 7. Thalmr discretionaiy reinedy aad the High Coiirt has always fhe discretion to refuse to graat any writ if it is satisfied that fhe ^grieved party can have aa adequate or suitable relief elsewhere." The HonTile Supreme Court ia Secy. U.P. High School & Intermediate EducaUoa, AUahabad & another v. H.K. Lal2 observed fhat fhe writ jurisdiction is discretionaiy jurisdiction and should not ordinanly be exercised if fhere is an altemative reinedy. It is weU settled by a catena of decision that normaUy the High Court should not iaterfere if there is an adequate efficacious altemative reinedy where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party inust exhaust fhe statutoiy reinedy before resortuig to writ jiuisdiction, except when a veiy strong case is inade out for inakiag a departure. Applying the weU settled dicta laid down by the Honlale Supreiae Court in catena of decisions on fhe issue of availabiUty of altemative reiuedy to fhe facts of the case, this petition is disinissed as not inaintauiable as no strong case has been niade out for exercise of exfa'aordinaiy discretionaiy jurisdiction ia faovur of the petitioner. For the reasons ineiitioned hereiaabove, wifliout expressiag any opinion on inerits, the petition is disinissed at motion stage. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to fhe alteraative statutoiy forum fhat inay be available to hini under fh.e provisions oflaw, ifso advised. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge (2007) 2 SCC 216