1 2025:CGHC:10044 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 681 of 2023 1 - Smt. Darshan Kaur Arora W/o Gurdeep Singh Arora Aged About 75 Years R/o Punjabi Colony, Dayalband, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ramsharan Yadav S/o Late Makelaram Yadav Aged About 64 Years Present Address Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Shivcharan Yadav S/o Makelaram Yadav Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Birkona, P.S. Koni, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Rajkumar Tiwari S/o Late Anuj Prasad Aged About 58 Years R/o Bhairvi Goods, Near Old Rojgar Karyalaya, Koni Raod, Sarkanda, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Rajendra Agrahari S/o Banwarilal Agrahari, R/o Village Matiyari, Tahsil Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G) ---- Respondents For Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. Vinay Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.02.2025 1. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders by allowing the writ petition and to set- aside the order dated 20-03-2023 (Annexure P-1) and to allow the application of the petitioner/plaintiff (Annexure P-27) for demarcation of her land Kh. No. 32/06 area 0.17 acre situated at Village Chaantidih Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court further kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case for kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner including cost of the petition.” 2. Mr. Shrivastava, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that an application under Order 26 Rule 10(2) read with Rule 10(3) of the C.P.C. was preferred for demarcation of Survey No.32/6, situated at Village-Chantidih, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) on the ground that the earlier order of demarcation was passed but that Survey No.32/6 admeasuring area 0.17 acres which belongs to the petitioner was not demarcated. It is also stated that Narayan Prasad Gabel, who was the Tahsildar at that relevant time has been examined as the Court Witness who stated that Survey No.32/6 was never 3 demarcated by him. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava. They would submit that the revenue authorities conducted the demarcation pursuant to the order passed by the learned Trial Court and submitted its report. They would further submit that the entire Survey No.32 was demarcated by the revenue authorities and the demarcation report was submitted before the Court below. They would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. From a perusal of the order dated 17.05.2019, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner/plaintiff was directed to remain present before the office of the Tehsildar on 22.06.2019 but it appears that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants appeared before the Tehsildar and thereafter a demarcation was conducted by the revenue authorities pursuant to the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 6. The petitioner has raised an objection that no notice was served upon him and the demarcation was conducted in his absence. He also contended that Survey No.32/6 was not demarcated by the revenue authorities and this fact has been admitted by the concerned witness in his evidence. -4- 7. Taking into consideration the fact that despite the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the parties failed to appear in the office of the Tehsildar on 22.06.2019 and the revenue authorities conducted the demarcation pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioners have no right to challenge demarcation report submitted by the revenue authorities. The demarcation report would show that entire survey No.32 was demarcated and memo was also prepared. 8. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to make all endeavours to conclude the proceedings of the civil suit expeditiously. 9. The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha