1 2025:CGHC:50430 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5161 of 2025 1 - Rajesh Kumar Philip S/o Late H. Philip Aged About 62 Years R/o Fundurdhani, Ward No. 10, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tahsildar Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Revenue Inspector (Nazul) Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Harish Lal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Akanksha Verma, PL 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 09/10/2025 By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the demarcation notice (Annexure P/1) whereby the respondent No.5 issued the said notice to the petitioner for demarcation of the land for construction of Bhagat Singh Chowk in the Government Land. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving as the Sectetary of the C.L.Church, Kedarpur, Ambikapur and is in peaceful possession of the land bearing Khasra No.1250, Street No. 3, Town Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja where a Pastor’s quarter has been constructed. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have issued a demarcation notice purportedly for the establishment of Bhagat Singh Chowk and the Revenue Inspector (Respondent No.5) has measured the land of the petitioner instead of the adjoining government land. 3. It is further contended that the alleged demarcation has not been conducted in accordance with law, no copy of the demarcation report or panchnama has been provided and that the Revenue Inspector has orally warned that a portion of the petitioner’s house will be demolished. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for interim protection restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action or demolishing the petitioner's property without due process of law. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the writ petition is 3 premature and misconceived as no notice of demolition has been issued to the petitioner, nor has any final order been passed by the competent authority. It is further submitted that mere apprehension of possible demolition or action in the future does not give rise to a cause of action for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 5. On perusal of the record, it appears that no statutory notice has been issued to the petitioner by the competent authority and there is no material on record to show that any final order of demarcation or demolition has been passed. The petitioner’s grievance is thus based solely on apprehension. 6. In absence of any actionable order or proceedings adversely affecting the petitioner’s rights, the petition is found to be premature and not maintainable. 7. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed as premature and not maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as and when any cause of action arises. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.10.13 11:09:06 +0530