?HTT' BS:!1 HIGHCOURTOF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BiLASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ -t"u^ RESPONDENTS w WritPetitjon N0,695 pf 2004 PET!T!QNERS 1. (A) Nirmal Ram son of late Kashtu aged about45 years 1. (B) Mst. Mankuwar* Bai widow of late Kastu aged 65 years. 2. ModhaksonofDhuru. 3. Mahaju son of Sodhak 4. Mahanand son of Sodhak 5. Ramsai son of Sodhak. No.2 to 5 through Attorney Holder Nirma! son of late kashtu. (A!l are resident of jviilage Chaini, Tahsil Bagicha, Distt) Jashpurnager (Chhattisgarh). . VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Cotlector Jashpur Nager. 2. Collector District Jashpur. Head quarter Jashpur Nager. 3. DivisionaiofficerRevenueDepartment Bagicha Distt. JashpurNager. 4. Mst. Suksi Bai widow of late Uchit Narayansingh. Viliage Harradipa. i 5. Mst.Mankunwar widow of Uchit Narayan village Sanna. 6. Mst. Maniyaro widow ofUchitNarayan Singh village Harradipa 7. Ajit Narayan Singh son of Uchit NarayanSinghvi!!ageHarradipa 8. Udai Narayan Singh son of Uchit| NarayanSingh village Harradipa. ; 9. SaryNarayan Singh grand son &f Uchit Narayan Singh villagei Harradipa. 1 10. VrindaNarayan Singh grand son of| Uchit Narayan Singh villagel Harradipa. H 11. Deep Narayan Singh grand son of| Uchit Narayan Singh village. Harradipa. l All no 4 to 11 are resident of villagel MaFradipaPQlJGe Statipn SanriaTahS!!! Bagicha DistrietJaslipur. j | ill •i :.)..,...-;.....—. -a.- 8? ^- Present: Shri J.S. Baraik, learnedcounse! for the petitioners. Shri Vinay Harit, leamed Dy. Adv. General for the State. Shri A.K. Prasad, iearned counsel for respondents 5,6,7,9 10 and11. ORALORDER :- (Passed on7 SeptCTnber, 2006) This writ petition is directed against the order of theSub Divisional Officer, Bagicha dated 30.12.1995 passed under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959, (for short 'the Code'). Against the impugned order, an appeal liesto thejurisdictional Coltector underSection 44 of the Code. Furthermore, a revision is atso preferr©dto the Board of Revenue under Section 50 of the Code. The petitioner without exhausting the aforementioned alternative, efficacious as well as comprehensive remedies have straightaway approached this Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution. (2) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, 1 do not find any extraordinary situation or circumstance which could justify the petitioners to straightaway approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india without exhausting alternative rerriedies. Onthat short ground, the writ petition is dismissed, however, reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail &f statutory remedies noted above. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Judge -!i