1 2025:CGHC:28253 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1479 of 2025 1 - Smt. Seetabai Sinha Wd/o Late Ramadheen Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Charama, Tahsil Charama District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Urban Administration Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Santosh Sahu S/o Duwaruram R/o Village Charama, Tahsil Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) :Shri Praveen K.Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State For Respondent No. 2 : : Ms. Akanksha Verma, PL Shri D.N.Prajapati, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 26/06/2025 With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.09.2024 whereby the revision preferred by the Revenue Board, Bilaspur, Circuit Court Raipur has been dismissed. The petitioner has prayed seeking for the following 2 reliefs: “10.1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P/1). 10.2. That any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favor of the petitioners, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 had submitted an application before the learned Tahsildar, Charama stating that he had purchased a land bearing Khasra No. 242/2 measuring 0.02 hectares from the petitioner through a registered sale deed in the year 2007 and he is the recorded landowner. Thereafter he had constructed a complex on the suit land leaving 12 feet wide common road however, during demarcation the applicant found that his land is short of ½ decimal or 0.5 decimal and it is is possession of the other family members of the petitioner and therefore the compensation land be provided to him. The Tahsildar after registering the case and after examining complete documents and report of the Revenue Inspector found that there is no shortage of the suit land and after perusing the demarcation panchnama dated 30.11.2018 respondent No.2 had signed and written that he is satisfied, therefore the application was rejected vide order dated 23.08.2021. 3. Against the said order, the respondent No.2 preferred First Appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Charama District North Bastar Kanker and the appeal was allowed vide order dated 31.03.2022 by setting aside the order of the Tahsildar and directing to remove the possession of the petitioner from the suit land. 3 4. The petitioner then preferred Second Appeal before the learned Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur Link Court Kanker whereby the Commissioner upheld the order passed by the SDO ® and dismissed the second appeal vide order dated 11.11.2022. The petitioner preferred revision before the Revenue Board, Bilaspur Circuit Court, Raipur and found that both the appellate courts have given a concurrent finding of facts and law and no interference is called for therefore the revision is dismissed on 20.09.2024.Being thus aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 5. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P/1) is illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and law and therefore the same may be set aside. He submits that the learned appellate court and the revisional Court has failed to appreciate that the Tahsildar after examining the complete documents and report of the Revenue Inspector found that there is no shortage of suit land. He submits that the claim of the easement of right can be decided only by the civil court as per Section 35 of the Easement Act, 1882. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that he purchased the land in the year 2007 by a registered sale deed bearing Khasra No. 242/2 admeasuring area 0.02 hectares form the petitioner and constructed a complex on the said suit land leaving a 12 feet wide path in the public interest. He submits that during demarcation of the said land ½ decimal land was less and at the time of sale of the said land, the petitioner had declared the same to be her part of land but the same belonged to another member of her family and therefore it may be compensated. However, after contesting the case, when the revision 4 was dismissed by the Board of Revenue, Circuit Court Raipur, the petitioner has filed this petition which may be dismissed as being devoid of merits. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 8. The dispute between the parties is with regard to 12 feet road and the application filed by the respondent No.2 has been dismissed by the Tahsildar on 23.08.2021 on the ground that there is no encroachment found during demarcation and there is no document filed by either of the parties to show that the petitioner has encroached the 12 ft. road. However, the First Appeal filed by respondent No.2 has been allowed by the SDO ® on 31.03.2022 and thereafter second appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the SDM on 11.11.2022 and the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Revenue Board on 20.09.2024. 9. It is thus crystal clear that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 is with regard to 12 ft. road which would be decided only on the basis of demarcation and therefore taking into consideration the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to demarcate the land in dispute afresh in the presence of the parties within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. 10. Till then, respondents are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the land in question. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.07.04 11:05:57 +0530