1 2025:CGHC:31593 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 624 of 2025  Patlan Singh S/o Late Shri Mutur Singh Aged About 80 Years R/o Village Janjgir (Main Road) In Front Of D.K. Medical Store Tahsil Janjgir- District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Dheeraj Singh S/o Late Shri Tripurari Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Janjgir Main Road In Front Of D.K. Medical Store Tehsil Janjgir, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Thruogh Collector District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 09-07-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by learned Third Civil Judge–Junior Division, Janjgir, District– Janjgir Champa in Civil Suit No. 4A/2024 dated 09.05.2025 whereby application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC moved by petitioner has been rejected. 2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner [plaintiff] instituted a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.09 17:30:16 +0530 2 civil suit for declaration of title and vacant possession of suit property inter-alia on the ground that respondent No. 1 [defendant No. 1] has encroached over 0.02 acre land out of Khasra No. 3658/3 ad-measuring 0.13 acre, situated at Village–Janjgir, Tehsil–Janjgir, District–Janjgir Champa belonging to petitioner. An application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC was moved for appointment of Local Commissioner on the ground that in demarcation report, entire land i.e. Khasra Nos. 3658/1 and 3658/2 was not demarcated. Learned Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that demarcation was conducted by the revenue authorities at the instance of petitioner himself and no encroachment was found. It was also observed by the Trial Court that earlier, application under Section 250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 was moved by petitioner before Tehsildar and same was dismissed vide order dated 05.03.2024. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is dispute with regard to boundaries as defendant No. 1 has encroached over 0.02 acre land belong to plaintiff and in demarcation report, this position is not clear, therefore application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC was moved by plaintiff for appointment of Local Commissioner and same has been rejected by the Trial Court without assigning sufficient reasons. He prays to set-aside the order impugned and allow the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. 3 5) Heard. 6) Evidently, application was moved by the plaintiff himself before revenue authorities, pursuant to which demarcation was conducted in presence of plaintiff. Thereafter, application under Section 250 of Code, 1959 was moved by plaintiff which was dismissed. It appears that plaintiff has not challenged the demarcation report submitted by the revenue authorities before any higher forum and instead moved application under Order 26 Rule 9 before Trial Court. 7) Taking into consideration the fact that demarcation was conducted on instance of plaintiff, there is no need to appoint Local Commissioner for demarcation of land. Therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application so moved by plaintiff. 8) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed at admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya