1 2025:CGHC:47755 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3382 of 2025 1 - Mohammad Kalim S/o Late Haji Mohd. Ismail Aged About 73 Years R/o Kasabpura, Mominpura, Nagpur, Occupation Business Hotel Farhhen Hansapuri Nagpur (Maharashtra) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Durg, Distt- Durg C.G. 2 - Additional Tehsildar Bhilai Nagar Distt- Durg C.G. 3 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bhilai, Distt- Durg C.G. 4 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Its Managing Director Cum C E O, Bhilai Nagar Distt- Durg C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Anurag Tripathi, PL For Respondent No.4 : Ms. Upasna Mehta, Advocate on behalf of Dr. Saurabh Pandey, Advocate SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.22 11:18:38 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 17/09/2025 The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent authorities to demarcate his land situated at Village situated opposite Karuna Hospital, Bhilai, District Durg. The grievance urged before this Court is that despite repeated representations and applications submitted before the revenue authorities and even after a specific direction issued by this Court in WPC No. 3009/2017 decided on 13.11.2017, no demarcation has been carriedo ut till date, thereby depriving the petitioner of peaceful possession of his land. 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded is that the petitioner claims ownership over the land in question which stands duly mutated in his name and in the names of his two brothers. It is his case that he has been running from pillar to post since 2016 for getting his land demarcated. Despite orders of this Court in earlier proceedings, no meaningful action has been taken by the revenue authorities. 3. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 Tahsildar has not complied with the orders of this Court and respondent No.3 is reluctant in cooperating the demarcation proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court had already directed the Collector, Durg in WPC No. 3009/2017 to ensure 3 demarcation of the petitioner’s land. However, in spite of lapse of nearly eight years, the order has not been implemented. It is urged that the petitioner’s right to property under Article 300 A of the constitution is being frustrated by deliberate inaction of revenue authorities. 5. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 submits that the application of the petitioner for demarcation is pending before the Tahsildar. It is further submitted that appropriate proceedings will be taken in accordance with law after considering the objections if any, of the concerned parties. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 -Bhilai Steel Plant however submits that the land of the petitioner has not been acquired by the Bhilai Steel Plant at any point of time and therefore the question of BSPs interference in the matter does not arise. 5. After carefully considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the material available on record, it appears that it is not in dispute that the order passed by this Court in WPC No. 3009/2017 vide order dated 13.11.2017 directing the Collector, Durg to ensure demarcation of the petitioner’s land has not been complied with till date. Such non- compliance of judicial directions over a period of nearly eight years reflects poorly on the functioning of the authorities concerned. 6. The plea of respondent No.4-Bhilai Steel Plant that the land has not been acquired by the BSP, in fact, supports the case of the petitioner. If the land has not been acquired by the BSP and continues to stand in the name of the petitioner and his brothers in the revenue 4 records, then there can be no impediment in carrying out the demarcation of the said land. 7. The demarcation process is a statutory duty of the revenue authorities and cannot be indefinitely stalled. If respondent NO.3 or any other party raises objections, such objections must be substantiated by relevant documents and the same shall be objectively8 considered by the Tahsildar. However, the pendency of the objections cannot be used as a ground to withhold demarcation altogether. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 Tahsildar, Durg to proceed with the demarcation of the petitioner’s land in accordance with law. The demarcation exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in any case, within a period fo 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. Needless to observe that non-cooperation by any party shall not be a ground for stalling the proceedings. The Tahsildar shall ensure compliance in letter and spirit within the stipulated time. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge