1 2025:CGHC:37463-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 549 of 2025 Ramkaran Agrawal S/o Late Shri Kishan Lal Agrawal Aged About 79 Years R/o Bakimongra, Tahsil Katghora, Dist - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Korba, Dist - Korba Chhattisgarh 2 Dinesh Agrawal S/o Late Shri Govind Ram Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bakimongra, Tahsil Katghora, Dist - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31.07.2025 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 10:16:53 +0530 2 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC No. 3582 of 2025, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant/petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Kh. No. 113/2 area 0.72 acre situated at Vill- Mongra, P.H. No. 15, R.N. Circle and Tah. Katghora, Dist- Korba (C.G.), and the respondent No. 02 and 15 others made encroachment over the land of the appellant/petitioner, therefore he made an application for demarcation of the land. The competent Revenue Authority conducted the demarcation and also prepared the Panchnama and submitted the report on 12.04.2016, wherein it was mentioned that how much area has been encroached by the respondent No. 02 and 15 others, But at the time of submission of report the Superintendent Land Record J.P. Singh has manipulated the Panchnama report by overwriting over the same by mentioning the encroachment made by the respondent No. 02 as "000" instead of 361 sq. feet. The said fact came to knowledge of the appellant/petitioner after obtaining the copy of demarcation reports and regarding the illegal conduct of the respondent No. 02 and Superintendent Land Record, the appellant/petitioner made written complaint against them on 3 25.04.2016. Upon receipt of the complaint of the appellant/petitioner, the respondent No. 01 registered the Revenue Case No. 113/B-121/2015-16 on 04.05.2016 and passed the order of fresh demarcation on 16.09.2016 and issued the notice (Annexure P-4) in respect of the same. In the presence of the encroacher and other persons a fresh demarcation was conducted on 29.09.2016 and on same day the report (Annexure P-5) was submitted before the respondent No. 01 wherein it was found that the respondent No. 02 has made encroachment over 361 square feet land of the appellant/petitioner and the Superintendent Land Record J.P. Singh has done the over writing in the report. The appellant/petitioner obtained the copy of the inquiry/demarcation report and made written complaint (Annexure P-6) against the responsible persons with the allegation of manipulation over the Government Record i.e., demarcation report. The P.S. Bakimongra, Dist- Korba (C.G.) made inquiry on the complaint of the appellant/petitioner and found that the Superintendent Land Record J.P. Singh has manipulated the document, therefore registered the F.I.R. No. 241/2018 for the offences U/s 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. against him. The appellant/petitioner had earlier filed the Writ Petition WPC No. 1750/2017 against the illegal action of the respondent Revenue Authority which was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.06.2017 with liberty to approach before the respondent Collector for redressal of 4 his grievances, that in the light of order passed by the Hon'ble High Court the Collector registered the Revenue Case No. 84/B- 121/2017-18, wherein vide order dated 08.05.2018 the Collector Korba again directed for fresh demarcation ignoring the earlier demarcation report dated 29/30.09.2016. The appellant/petitioner had filed the Review Application before the Collector Korba which was registered as Review Case No. 04/B-121/2017-18 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 03.07.2018. Against the order passed by the Collector Korba, Revision was filed by the appellant/petitioner before the Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) which was allowed on 04.11.2019 (Annexure P-10) and the order of fresh demarcation was set aside. The respondent No. 02 had preferred the revision before the learned Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, Bilaspur (C.G.) against the order dated 04.11.2019 which was allowed by the learned Board of Revenue without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and passed the impugned order by affirming the order of fresh demarcation of the subject land. 3. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- “ 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties, since certain substantial irregularities were 5 pointed out in the demarcation report which was out of forgery, therefore, the Collector has directed for a fresh demarcation and if the fresh demarcation report is carried out no prejudice would be caused to the either of the parties. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (C.G.). 6. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.” 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/ writ petitioner by again reiterating the same plea praying for quashing of order dated 08.05.2025 passed by Learned Board of Revenue and the order of learned Single Judge. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/ writ petitioner submits that twice the demarcation has been conducted by the Revenue Authority and in both the reports encroachment was found. He further submits that learned Single Judge has failed to frame any time limit in respect of completion of proceeding of fresh demarcation of the said land and it will cause serious prejudice to the appellant as he is an octogenarain and is facing dispute with respect to illegal encroachment over his land for last about one decade and the respondent No. 02 is enjoying the possession of the encorached land. He further submits that order of fresh demarcation of the 6 subject land is illegal, improper and contrary to the law and is misuse of of the Government resources, time and money. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made and submits that no prejudice would be caused to either parties if fresh demarcation is conducted. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. Upon bare perusal of the records, it is found that since certain irregularities were pointed out in the demarcation report which was of forgery, therefore, the Collector has directed for fresh demarcation and if the fresh demarcation is carried out no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties. 9. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar