1 2025:CGHC:14930 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1395 of 2025 Bhuneshwar Sahu S/o Shyamlal Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Gram Ramhepur, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tahsildar, Lormi Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Alok Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 27.03.2025 1 Heard Mr. Alok Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.03.29 11:18:24 +0530 2 2 The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian with the following relief(s):- “10.1 Direct the Respondent no. 2, 3 and 4 to complete the enquiry with respect to right of way of the petitioner and demarcation be also done in accordance with the law in a time bound manner. 10.2 Direct the Respondent no. 2,3 and 4 to take appropriate steps for ensuring that proper access and right of way of the petitioner to reach his agricultural field be provided to him without any hinderance for doing agricultural work. 10.3 Any other relief, which the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper be granted to the petitioner.” 3 Brief facts of the case, is that the petitioner is the joint owner of land bearing Khasra No.238/3, measuring 0.061 hectares, situated at Giram Ramhepur, Patwari Halka No.28, Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. He had submitted an application for demarcation of the said land before the learned Tehsildar, Lormi, District Mungeli and on the basis of the said application, the learned Tehsildar, by letter dated 11.12.2023, directed the Revenue Inspector, Lormi, and the concerned Patwari (Patwari Halka No.28), Tehsil Lormi, to constitute a team to carry out the Batankan of the land and submit a report to the Tehsildar. He further submits that in compliance with the said direction, the 3 Revenue Inspector issued a notice to all concerned parties, informing them to be present for the demarcation process on 06.03.2024, however, on the said date, the process was not conducted and instead the Revenue Inspector prepared a Punchnama, stating that the land bearing Khasra No.238 had not been partitioned and that the petitioner's possession over the land was not established, and thus concluded that the demarcation and Batankan could not be carried out. 4 Subsequently, the Revenue Inspector sent a report to the learned Tehsildar on 15.04.2024, citing the same reasons, however, the petitioner had applied for Batankan of his land, which was overlooked in the report and instead of resolving the matter or taking steps to conduct the demarcation with the necessary resources, the learned Tehsildar, relying on the report of the Revenue Inspector, closed the petitioner's application in a very casual and arbitrary manner on 22.05.2024, which left the petitioner's grievance unresolved. Hence, this petition. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the application for demarcation of the land along with requisite fees through challan, but till date, his application has not been considered, as such, he has made a limited prayer before this Court that a direction be given to respondent No.4/ Tehsildar, Lormi, District Mungeli, C.G. to consider and decide the 4 application of the petitioner for demarcation of land within the specific time frame. 6 On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the application of the petitioner for demarcation of the land shall be considered and decided by the authorities within the short span. 7 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 8 Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as well as considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.4, i.e. the Tehsildar Lormi, District Mungeli, C.G. is directed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner for demarcation of the land in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other parties, within a period of 30 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 9 With the aforesaid observation/direction, instant writ petition is disposed of. Sd/-/- - (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh