1 2025:CGHC:35699 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3849 of 2025 1 - Tikaram Son Of Jahan Ram, Aged About 67 Years Resident Of Village - Kareli Chhoti, Tahsil Magarlod, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - The Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Upper Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Sub-Division Officr (Revenue), Kurud, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 5 - The Superintendent, Land Record, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 6 - Purushottam Son Of Heeralal, Resident Of Village - Sirri, Tahsil - Kurud, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 7 - Narayanlal Son Of Heeralal, Resident Of Village - Paraswani, Tahsil - Magarlod, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 8 - Heeralal Wd/o Heeralal, Resident Of Village - Paraswani, Tahsil - Magarlod, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 9 - Bharat Son Of Itwari, Resident Of Village - Kareli Chhoti, Tahsil - Magarlod, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. S. Marhas, Addl. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 24/07/2025 1. By way of the present petition the petitioner is seeking the following 2 reliefs: “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) 10.3 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case including cost of litigation.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application under Section 114, 115, 116 before respondent no. 5 stating that the land bearing khasra no. 267/4 & 267/5 admeasuring area 0.470 hectare and 0.242 hectare respectively situated at Village- Paraswani, P.H. No. 78, R.I.C. Magarlod, Up-Tahsil Magarload, District- Dhamtari were recorded in the name of petitioner’s father. As a result of which respondent no. 5 registered the case bearing no. 161/A-6-A/2008-09 and issued notice to the affected persons. Respondent no. 5 called the resport from the revenue authority and conducted spot inspection. Vide order dated 19.05.2009 the respondent no. 5 has corrected the records in respect of area of subject lands. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no. 6 to 9 filed an appeal before respondent no. 4. vide order dated 25.05.2011 the said appeal was dismissed. Respondent no. 6 to 9 again filed a second appeal before respondent no. 3 and vide order dated 3 15.03.2018 the respondent no. 3 has allowed the appeal and set-aside the order dated 25.05.2011 by holding that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent no. 6 to 9 and in their absence the spot inspection was done. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2018 the petitioner preferred a revision before respondent no. 2 along with application for grant of interim relief which was dismissed vide order dated 05.05.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. It is crystal clear from perusal of impugned order dated 05.05.2025 that demarcation was done in absence of respondent no. 6 to 9 therefore the matter was remanded back to the respondent no. 5. 6. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsels, it is directed that demarcation shall be done in presence of all affected and concerned parties and thereafter respondent no. 5 shall pass a fresh order after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to all the affected and concerned parties. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima