-1- 2025:CGHC:25018 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 55 of 2021 Mahendra Baghmare S/o T.R. Baghmare Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Street No. 07, Shanti Nagar , Supela, Bhilai , Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Ghanshyam Das Khatwani @ Bagga S/o Ramesh Lal Khatwani Aged About 55 Years R/o Shanti Nagar , Kohka, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Darshan Lal Khatwani S/o Dulalaram Khatwani Aged About 50 Years R/o Shanti Nagar , Kohka, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ashok Kumar Khatwani S/o Ramesh Lal Khatwani Aged About 52 Years R/o Shanti Nagar , Kohka, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tanveer Ajaj Khan S/o Late G.S. Khan Aged About 50 Years R/o Vaishali Nagar Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Zunaid Khan S/o Tanveer Ajaj Aged About 32 Years R/o Vaishali Nagar Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 17.06.2025 1) Heard on admission. 2) There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner in two rounds. 3) The instant petition has been preferred against the order dated 26.08.2020 passed by the learned Revenue Board, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, in Revision No. 05/1/A-12/106/2020, the parties being "Mahendra Baghmare Vs. Ghanshyam Das and Others," whereby the revision filed by the petitioner/applicant was dismissed and order passed by the learned the Commissioner, Durg, Chhattisgarh, dated 11.06.2020, in Case No. 161-A-12/2018-19, the parties being "Ghanshyam Das Khatwani and Others Vs. Mahendra Baghmare" was affirmed. 4) The respondents specifically pointed out lacunae in the demarcation report, stating that the demarcation was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 129 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, CGLRC), and that the field book was also not prepared, therefore, the learned Commissioner remitted back the matter to the Superintendent of Land Records to conduct a fresh demarcation. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a revision before the Board of Revenue. 5) From a bare perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that the demarcation was not conducted in accordance with the law and the petitioner would also get opportunity at the time of demarcation, and on these premises, the revision was dismissed. -3- 6) Taking into consideration the reasons assigned by the learned Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim