1 2025:CGHC:25979 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3069 of 2025 1 - Bhawarth Karim S/o Iqbal Karim Aged About 40 Years R/o Rajendra Nagar Bilaspur, Power Of Attorney Holder Of Land Bearing Khasra No. 2385/2 And 2385/3, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Collector Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kota Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Station House Officer Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Uttam Dewangan Revenue Inspector, Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Dilip Paraste Patwari, Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - Sakina Vanak W/o Abbas Vanak Aged About 40 Years R/o Sadar Bazar Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Aman Tamrakar & Shri Kashish Saluja, Advocates For Respondent/State For Respondent No.8 : : Shri Satish Gupta, GA Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 19/06/2025 With the consent of the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the illegal demolition and unauthorized interference with the petitioner’s immovable property by revenue officials during a purported demarcation of an adjacent plot bearing Khasra No. 2385/4. 3. Facts of the case in nutshell is that the petitioner is the Power of Attorney Holder in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 2385/2 and 2385/3 situated at Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh where the petitioner is having a petrol pump in the name of M/s. Mahamaya Service Station and associated permanent constructions. The adjacent landowner ie. respondent No.8, her husband and father in law are forcing the petitioner to sell the land to them and on refusal, the demarcation proceedings were initiated on his land. ON 31.05.2025, the petitioner received a notice for demarcation the land bearing Khasra No. 2385/4 belonging to Sakina Vanak-respondent No.8. Thereafter on 03.06.2025, without giving any further notice or order, the respondents/authorities have entered the premises of the petitioner and demolished some portion of the construction including parts of the petrol pump boundary and fencing after demarcation. It is against this demolition proceeding the petitioner has come before this Court. 4. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had received notice on 31.05.25 for demarcation of the adjacent land bearing Khasra No. 2385/4 situated at Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh and the petitioner is the Power of Attorney Holder in 3 respect of the land bearing Khasra No. 2385/2 and 2385/3 where he has a petrol pump in the name of M/s. Mahamaya Service Station and associated permanent constructions. Copy of the Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner is Annexure P/1. He submits that the adjacent landowner ie. respondent No.8, her husband and father in law are pressurizing the petitioner to sell the said land to them. He submits that on 31.05.2025, the petitioner received demarcation of the adjacent land bearing Khasra No.2385/4 belonging to another person namely Sakina Vanak Annexure P/2. He further submits that on the date of demarcation ie. 03.06.2025, without further notice the respondents No. 5, 6 & 7 unlawfully demolished the construction including the portion of the boundary wall and fencing claimed to be part of demarcation. The photographs in this regard have been attached vide Annexure P/3. 5. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that no demolition notice or order was ever issued by the revenue authority and no record or panchnama was drawn on the day of alleged demarcation therefore the petitioner made a written complain and representation to the Collector and Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur on 04.06.2025 but no action has been taken against them therefore the illegal action of the authorities is bad in law, arbitrary, discriminatory and bad in the eyes of law. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the demarcation of land Khasra No. 2385/4, Rakba 0.0360 hectare has been drawn on the application filed by the owner of the land namely Sakina Vanak on 3.06.2025. He further submits that the Revenue authority is not demolishing the disputed property and that the matter relates to the petitioner and respondent No.8. The revenue authority has demarcated 4 the land of the respondent No.8 under Section 129 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the document is taken on record. 7. Shri Ali Asgar, counsel for respondent No.8 submits that he would be filing his Vakalatnama during the course of the day. He submtis that after demarcation, the respondent No.8 has erected the boundary wall in her own land. He has filed the legal notice dated 11.06.2025 issued by the petitioner through his counsel and application for reconstitution. He has stated that in para 5 of the said legal notice it has been mentioned that : *;g fd esjh i{kdkjk mDr Hkwfe dh pkSgn`nh lq/kkj esa lg;ksx iznku djus rRij gS ;fn vki vlger gS rks ejsh i{kdkjk mDr Hkwfe ds fodz; ewY; dh dher vfoyEc vkidks okil djus rRij gS rkfd fookn dh fLFkfr mRiUu u gksA* 8. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts of the case and the respondents authorities No.1 to 5 have not demolished the property of the petitioner and it is purely a civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.8 therefore this Court finds no reason to entertain the present petition and it is hereby dismissed. However if the petitioner so desire, he is at liberty to file civil suit before the competent court. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.06.23 10:56:25 +0530