1 2025:CGHC:15214 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 280 of 2025 1. Chanchal Devi Verma W/o Late Dileshwar Prasad Verma Aged About 59 Years R/o Gokul Nagar, Tilda Nevra, Raipur, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.), (Plaintiffs), (Original Plaintiff Dead And Represented By Present Petitioners As Legal Heirs) 2. Rakesh Verma S/o Late Dileshwar Prasad Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Capital Homes Phase-1, Saddu, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Mamta Verma W/o Sandeep Verma Aged About 37 Years R/o Flat No. A-20, Capital Homes Phase-1, Saddu, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Kundan Verma S/o Late Dileshwar Prasad Verma Aged About 34 Years R/o Gokul Nagar, Sosoli, Nevra, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Ashwani Banchor S/o Payare Lal Banchor R/o Shanti Vihar Colony, Daganiya, Tehsil And Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Leena Banchor W/o Shyam Verma R/o Shanti Vihar Colony, Daganiya, Tehsil And Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 01-04-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Fourth Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raipur (C.G.) dated 15.01.2025 whereby application moved by the petitioners/ Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.04.01 16:14:54 +0530 2 plaintiffs U/o 26 Rule 9 of CPC has been rejected. 2) Facts of the present case are that plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction pertaining to part of Khasra No. 654/27 ad-measuring 4,900 sq. ft situated at Raipura, P.H. No. 104, Revenue Circle Raipur-I (C.G.) inter-alia on the ground that the suit property was purchased through registered sale-deed in the year 1991. It is pleaded that the defendant No. 2 has encroached over part of the suit property, therefore, an application for demarcation was moved before the Tehsildar, Raipur in the year 2011 and demarcation was also conducted in the year 2015 but that order was quashed by the District Collector, Raipur and matter was remitted back to Tehsildar but till date, application has not been decided. The plaintiffs moved an application before the trial Court for appointment of Commissioner to resolve the dispute with regard to identity of land/ encroachment over the suit property but that application has been rejected on the ground that plaintiffs are trying to collect evidence through the Court concerned. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners/ plaintiffs submits that there is dispute with regard to identity of land as defendant No. 2 has started raising construction over part of the suit property, therefore, application U/o 26 Rule 9 of CPC was moved. He contends that the learned trial Court rejected the application without assigning sufficient reason. He fairly admits that application for demarcation is pending consideration before Tehsildar, Raipur as matter was remitted back by the District Collector, Raipur to the authority concerned. 4) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents available on record. 5) Admittedly, application for demarcation was moved by the plaintiffs in 3 the year 2011; pursuant to which demarcation was conducted in the year 2015; but that order has already been quashed by the District Collector, Raipur and matter was remitted back to the Tehsildar, Raipur to decide it afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the interested parties. 6) It appears that application for demarcation is still pending consideration before the Tehsildar, Raipur, therefore, without touching the order impugned, instant petition is hereby disposed of directing the Tehsildar, Raipur to decide the pending application for demarcation within period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7) It is expected that the authority concerned shall provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the interested parties. Petitioners will be at liberty to revive their prayer if exigency survives. 8) With the aforesaid direction(s), instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya