>^1-^A-.A^-^.^ l i THEHON'BLEHIGHCOURTOFCHHAmSGARHAT ET] ./^ f s^^.c-s/ •^'^wy >^^<^ ^^y ^/^y ./^}'^' ^^./ :'<'<<y^ ^f 302^1 OF 2011 Singl Ganesh Kumar Jagatramka S/o Shri Banwarilal , aged about 65 years 2^ Akhilesh Kumar S/o Shri Ganesh Kum.ar Jagatramka, aged about 38 years • Both R/o village-Taraimal, Up-Tahsil- Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh At . present Shyam Talkies Road, Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS .' . 1. ' Mahesh Diwan S/o not known to the petitioner, R/'o village-Taraimal, Up- Jahsil- Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). 2. Dukalu Behra S/o not known to the petitioner, R/o village-Taraimal, Up- Tahsil- Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). 3. Nayab Tahsildar, Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh(C.G.). 4./^"TahsiIdar, Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh 5. •<Sub Divisional Officer (R) , Gharghoda, /Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 6. Collector, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 'be petitioner respectfullybegsto.submif as under: iiLT'EP .'KS-S?-^1-^ As shown in the c3.use title ^ H1GH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petjtion (227) No. of2011 PETITIONERS RESPQNDENTS Ganesh Kumar Jagatramka and another. . . Versus Mahesh Diwan and others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTiCLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr.N.K. Aaarwal, J.) Present ; Mr. M.K. Sinha, counsei for the petitioners. Mr. Arvind Kumar Dubey, Panei Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (16.06.2011) Heardon admission, 1. instant petition is not filed against any specific order but grievances of the petitioners is that despite order passed by Naib Tahsildar, Tamnar, District Raigarh under Section 250 ofthe C.G. Land Revenue Code on 8.4.1999 and despite the fact that the execution flled bythe plaintiffs is pending since 2002, Naib Tahsildar is not passingany order in the execution proceedings. G. 2. CQunse! for the statesubmits that as per Section 8 of the C.< Land Revenue Code, 1950, sfficacious a.ltemativeremedy is availabie to the petitioners to approaeh the Board of Revenue and, therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order impugned, in the considered opinion of this Court, the instant petition is not maintainable in view of the fact the efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to file a petition under Sectlon 8 oftheC.G.Land Revenue Code. 4. In view of above, the petition is hereby dismissed. i-lowever, the petitioners are at llbertyto approach before the Board of Revenue for redressalof their grievances under Section 8 of the C.G.Land Revenue Code. W^al ^^ittvf^^-^v^lHfri'^vii^jr^^^wi^^^