1 2025:CGHC:34399 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3771 of 2025 1 - Gaurishankar Patel S/o Late Shivlal Patel Aged About 65 Years R/o Mukhya Basti, Village- Bahma Tehsil - Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Umashankar Patel S/o Late Shivlal Patel Aged About 63 Years R/o Mukhya Basti, Village- Bahma Tehsil - Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Jaishankar Patel S/o Late Shivlal Patel Aged About 60 Years R/o Mukhya Basti, Village- Bahma Tehsil - Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Durgacharan Patel S/o Chitrabhaan Patel R/o Village- Bahma, Tehsil- Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Mahesh Kumar Patel S/o Chitrabhan Patel R/o Village- Bahma, Tehsil - Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Sushil Kumar Patel S/o Chitrabhan Patel R/o Kotra Road, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Kalavati Patel D/o Daulatram Patel R/o Village- Sangitarai, Tehsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Mathura Bai Patel W/o Daulatram Patel R/o Village- Sangitarai, Tehsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 6 - Gandharva Sen Patel S/o Daulatram Patel R/o Village- Sangitarai, Tehsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 7 - Hemant Kumar Patel S/o Daulatram Patel R/o Village- Sangitarai, Tehsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 8 - The Collector Raigarh District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 9 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raigarh Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 10 - The Tehsildar Raigarh Tehsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents 2 (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 21/07/2025 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 04.06.2025 passed in Revenue Case No. 2023090421000065/A-6A/2022-23 by the Sub Divisional Officer (R ) Raigarh C.G., whereby the order dated 06.10.2023 directing to record the names of the petitioners in the revenue records has been set-aside in review proceeding and consequently, the application moved by respondent No. 1 under Section 115 and 116 has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raigarh reviewing the order dated 06.10.2023 is nothing but a farce since respondents No. 4 to 7 has not filed any application for the review of the order dated 06.10.2023. Therefore, he prays for quashment of the impugned order dated 04.06.2025. 3. Learned counsel for respondents that with regard to the grievance of the petitioner, there is an alternative remedy is available to petitioner to file appeal under Section 44(1) of CG Land Revenue Code 1959. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 3 material available on record. 5. Considering the submission of the respondents and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Sub Divisional Officer (R ) has passed the order (Annexure P-1) against the petitioners and the order is an appealable order, therefore there is an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 44 of the CG Land Revenue Code 1959. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 6. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file an appropriate appeal before the concerned authorities, if they so want. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti