1 2025:CGHC:30868 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3444 of 2025 1 - Ashok Nishad S/o Late Tulasram Nishad Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Baldakachhar, P.H.No. 01, R.N.M. Kasdol, Tahsil Kasdol District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Collector Balodabazar District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar Tahsil Kasdol District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Naib Tahsildar Tahsil Kasdol District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Verma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 07/07/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- 10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any suitable writ/order/directions to the respondent authorities to carry on the demarcation on the land belong to the present petitioner, strictly as per the command of the law; 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be 2 pleased to issue any suitable writ(s)/order(s)/direction (s) to quash the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 passed by respondent No. 5 and take strict action against the negligent officer. 10.3 any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court thinks fit & proper as per the facts & circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the respondent No. 5 in Revenue Case No. 202501210700116, whereby an application for demarcation of land submitted by the petitioner has been disposed of on the pretext of a pendency of another revenue case bearing number 202012210700076, which in-fact has previously been disposed of by the authorities. He further submits that he is also aggrieved by the inactin on the part of the respondent-authorities that demarcation application preferred by him were not entertain though the respondents authorities are duty bound to do so. The inaction on the part of the respondent authorities is arbitrary & illegal, therefore prays for quashment of the impugned order dated 30.04.2025. 3. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. On perusal of the records, it reveals the fact that the petitioner has filed an application for demarcation of land, however the Tahsildar Kasdol has passed the order on the pretext of pendency of revenue case 202012210700076 the demarcation cannot be done. However, on perusal of Annexure P/2, the said revenue case has already been disposed of by the concerned authorities. As such, the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 liable to be and is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 5 to decide his application for demarcation afresh within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti