1 2025:CGHC:29734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3334 of 2025 1 - Shilpa Shrivastava W/o Preetanshu Aged About 36 Years R/o Sarkanda Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Tahsildar Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Revenue Inspector Sakri, Tahsil - Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Patwari Halka No. 43, Ameri, Tahsil Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 02.07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner isseeking for the following reliefs:- “a. That, the Hon’ble Court may kind enough to issue an appropriate writ by directing the respondent no. 3 to 5 to complete the process of demarcation of land of petitioner by 2 identifying the land of the petitioner as early as possible within a period of one month. b. Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also be kindly granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to inaction of the respondent authorities the demarcation process of land of petitioner has not been completed till date. Despite repeated approach by the petitioner the respondent authorities are not interested in demarcating the property of petitioner which shows the malafie and arbitrariness of respondent authorities. He further submitted that as per the Panchnama report dated 01.06.2024 the respondent authorities without applying their mind had stopped the demarcation proceedings giving the excuse that due to dense area and also since the land bearing Khasra No. 109 holding 53 partitions are unable to demarcate the land of the petitioner, shows the unwillingness of the respondent authorities in following the earlier order passed by the Hon’ble Court in WPC No. 5024/2023 vide order dated 04.12.2023. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the relief sought by the leaned counsel for the petitioners. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with rapt attention. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is an admitted fact that vide order dated 04.12.2023 this court has passed the order directing the respondent no. 3 and 4 to ensure that the demarcation proceeding be concluded in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties related to the subject land, within an outer limit of 45 days. Thereafter, as per the order of the High Court on 19.03.2024 the respondent authorities started the proceeding of demarcation of the land in subject and on 16.04.2024 a team of 05 members was constituted. Thereafter on 01.06.2024 a Panchnama Report(Annexure P/4) was submitted. In Annexure P/5 categorical finding was given which is as under:- 1- ;g fd orZeku pkyw uD’kk ds vuqlkj vkosfnr Hkwfe ds 3 lehiLFk [kljk uacj esa fLFkr pkank dk fujh{k.k fd;k x;k] LFky ij pkank uknq:Lr ik;k x;kA 2- ;g fd orZeku jktLo vfHkys[k esa [k-ua- 109 ds dqy 53 cVkadu gks pqds gS tcfd pkyw uD’kk esa cVkadu ugh gqvk gSA 3- ;g fd fely vfHkys[k esa [k-ua- 109 ds dqy 4-35 ,dM+ ntZ gS tcfd orZeku jktLo vfHkys[k [kljk ikaplkyk esa [k-ua- 109 ds dqy 53 cDVkaduksa dk ;ksx jdck 5-096 ,dM+ gSA tks fd fely ls 0-746 ,dM+ dh o`f) gks pqdh gSA 4- ;g fd vkosfndk f’kYik JhokLro }kjk vkosfnr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa firk }kjk d;’kqnk Hkwfe gksus ds dkj.k okLrfod fpUgkadu dh tkudkjh ugh gksuk cryk;k x;kA vkosfnr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa [k-ua- 109 ds fdlh Hkh Hkw&Hkkx esa vkosfndk dk dCtk ugh gksuk ik;k x;kA 5- ;g fd [k-ua- 109 ,oa lehih [k-ua- 99] 102] 103] 105] dh Hkwfe ij HkwfeLokfe;ksa dh Lfkk;h ifjlaifRRk;ka ¼edku ,oa ckm.MªhokWy½ fufeZr gS] ftlds dkj.k LFky uki fof?k ls cVkadu fd;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA vr% vkosfnr Hkwfe ij vkosfndk dk dCtk ugh gksus] pkyw uD’kk esa cVkadu ugh gksus ds dkj.k ,oa vkosfnr Hkwfe ds ewy [kljk uacj 109 ds dqy ckVkaduksa dk jdck] fely vfHkys[k esa ntZ jdck ls 0-746 ,dM+ Hkwfe dh o`f) gksus ds dkj.k LFky uki fof/k }kjk vkosfnr Hkwfe dk lhekadu ugh fd;k tk ldkA 6. Accordingly, the constituted team stated that they were not able to measure the land/ demarcate the land due to the above mentioned categorical findings. Moreover in the present petition, the petitioner is not able to point out as to why and on what grounds the demarcation of land should be conducted again. Hence in the absence of any good ground, this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 8. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE alfiza