1 2025:CGHC:6491 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 768 of 2025 1 - Dashrath Rajak S/o Sukhau Rajak Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Sahaspur Lohara, Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Board of Revenue Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. 3 - Commissioner Durg Division, District Durg, C.G. 4 - Collector Kawardha, District Kabirdham, C.G. 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kawardha, District Kabirdham, C.G. 6 - Tahsildar Tahsil Sahaspur-Lohara, District Kabirdham, C.G. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.02.07 17:00:32 +0530 2 7 - Bhagwat Patel S/o Sawant Patel R/o Sahaspur Lohara, Tahsil Sahaspur-Lohara, District Kabirdham, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Vishwakarma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy.A.G. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 05/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order of the Board of Revenue dated 12/03/2024 and order dated 13/02/2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Durg and the order of the SDO(R) dated 15/03/2023 Annexure P/1, P/2 and P/3 respectively. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of the Board of Revenue as well as the other revenue authorities are not proper as again, there was a direction by the Board of Revenue for demarcation of the property in question stating therein that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents regarding the demarcation of the land. He further submits that the said repeated direction of demarcation is absolutely illegal as earlier on several occasions, the demarcation has been made and hence, the further demarcation order passed by the Board of Revenue is bad in law. 3. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the orders of the revenue authorities are just and proper, as looking to the dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents 3 regarding the illegal encroachment or occupation by either party, the Board of Revenue and the revenue authorities have rightly directed for fresh demarcation of the land in question and there is no illegality in the order. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order of the Board of Revenue, it is not required to issue notice to the private respondent No.7. 5. Looking to the dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents regarding their occupation over the particular plot i.e. Khasra No.283/6 and 283/8, the Board of Revenue has directed fresh demarcation of the land and directed the revenue authorities to decide the proceeding under Section 250 of the C.G.L.R.C. in accordance with law on the basis of the said demarcation report, hence, perusal of the order and the fact narrated therein, it appears that the order of the Board of Revenue is just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity in the order of the Board of Revenue. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at motion stage. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep