1 / 3 2025:CGHC:4587 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 10 of 2025 1 - Gevarchand Kurrey S/o Sunderlal Kurrey Aged About 62 Years R/o Mainpurkhurd P.H. No. 5, Tahsil- Mainpur, District Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Purnima Bai W/o Gevarchand Kurrey Aged About 57 Years R/o Mainpurkhurd P.H. No. 5, Tahsil- Mainpur, District Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Gram Panchayat, Mainpurkhurd, Village- Mainpurkhurd, Tahsil- Mainpur, District Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) 2 – Tahsildar-Mainpur, District Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Nayab-Tahsildar- Mainpur, District Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mainpur, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Mainpurkhurd, Village- Mainpurkhurd, Tahsil- Mainpur, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 2 / 3 6 – Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Mainpurkhurd, Village- Mainpurkhurd, Tahsil- Mainpur, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 7 – Secretary, Gram Panchayat Mainpurkhurd, Village- Mainpurkhurd, Tahsil- Mainpur, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) 9 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 27/01/2025 1. By the present review petition, the petitioner is seeking review of order dated 02/01/2025 passed in WPC No.6420/2024 by which the writ petition, filed by the petitioner questioning the order dated 29/10/2024 passed by the Tahsildar which was under challenge, was dismissed with an observation that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy under the CGLRC and a liberty was granted to him to approach the appellate authority under the CGLRC. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by filing the present review petition submits that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal before the SDO (Revenue) which is pending 3 / 3 consideration that is mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the grounds raised in the review petition. He would further submits by making a limited prayed that the appeal pending before the SDO be directed to be decided within the stipulated period. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not objected the limited prayed made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. As the petitioner has already approached before the SDO (Revenue) by filing an appeal questioning the order dated 29/10/2024 passed by the Tahsildar, the concerned SDO is directed to decide the appeal pending before him within a period of four weeks in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid direction, this review petition is disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar