1 2026:CGHC:21755 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3361 of 2021 1 - Pooran Lal S/o Late Shri Hari Prasad Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Kosamnara, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Jagnnath Dansena S/o Late Shri Hari Prasad Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kosamnara, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Bhagwano D/o Late Sewakram Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Kosamnara, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - Neelkamal S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Prasad Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kosamnara, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Tikaram S/o Late Shri Digamber Prasad Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Kosamnara, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - Saheb Ram S/o Late Tilakram Dansena Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kosamnara, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 7 - Ramesh Kumar S/o Late Bhuplal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kosamnara, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 8 - Digari Lal S/o Late Rooplal Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kosamnara, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 9 - Ashok Kumar S/o Late Bholaram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kosamnara, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 10 - Nagendra Negi S/o Late Heeralal Negi Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kosamnara, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 11 - Shyamlal Negi S/o Late Shankar Prasad Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Kosamnara, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 12 - Medini Negi S/o Late Heeralal Negi Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kosamnara, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 13 - Mandakini D/o Late Ramlal Negi Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kosamnara, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Raigarh Division, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - The Tahsildar Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - The Nayab Tahsildar Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 7 - The Patwari Halka No. 8, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. with Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, P.L. HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU Order on Board 08.05.2026 1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner there was a direction to conduct demarcation of the land subject matter of the writ petition. Though the demarcation is stated to have been conducted, however, it is not in accordance with law. There is no specific description of the area of land on which ROB is constructed as also the bypass road which is stated to be constructed on land including the land of the petitioner acquired in the year 1980. 2. Counsel for the State submits that complying the order dated 09.03.2020 passed in WPC No. 873 of 2020, demarcation was 3 conducted and accordingly, report was submitted, in which it has come that the ROB was constructed including the land of the petitioner which was earlier acquired. 3. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not disputing the earlier acquisition in the year 1980. He however submits that on the land of the petitioner which was acquired in the year 1980 for the purpose of construction of bypass road, bypass road was constructed and therefore, unless and until the respondent authorities by way of demarcation, specify the area of the land of the petitioner on which bypass road is constructed and the area of the land on which the ROB is constructed, the respondents could not make themselves clear that the ROB was constructed on the land which was subject matter of the acquisition in the year 1980. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents along with the record. 5. Annexure-P/11, is the proceedings of the Tahsildar, which is on the application for demarcation submitted by the petitioner. In the said proceedings, the Tahsildar has not constituted the team for conducting the demarcation, however, from the order sheet dated 21.06.2021 it appears that the Tahsildar considered the demarcation conducted the letter of the Sub Divisional Officer pursuant to direction issued in the writ petition bearing WPC No. 873 / 2020 dated 09.03.2020, which is extracted below for ready reference; राजस्य आदे श अनु वृति-प्ቔ 21.06.2021 ्ቚकराण प श। ्ቚकराण क अवृलोकनु तिकय। जिजसक अनु सरा आवृ देक परानुलोलो डनुसनु आ. हरिरा ्ቚसदे बनुस नु वृ अन्य 13 सभी# तिनुवृस# ቇኋम कसमनुरा क ቛኋरा ቇኋम करामनुरा पह.नु. 08 4 हस#लो वृ जिजलो रायगढ़ म) ቝኌस्+ भीतिम ख.नु. 102/1 क वृ्ቧ. 1980-1981 क मलो रिराकड. + मलो नुक्श क अनु सरा आवृ तिदे भीतिम क स#म0कनु तिकय जनु क तिनुवृ देनु तिकय गय ह1। आवृ देनु प्ቔ क स+ घालोनु, ब#-01 क3 ्ቚति एवृ0 हई क्቏. आदे श क3 ्ቚति भी# स0लो्ሿ तिकय गय ह1। ्ቚस्  आवृ देनु प्ቔ क स0ब0ध म) राजस्वृ तिनुरा#्ቌक तिकराड#मलो नुगरा रायगढ़/करा एवृ0 हल्क प्቏वृरा# क ्቏#म गति; करा आवृ तिदे भीतिम क स#म0कनु तिकय जनु ह  ሺኋपनु जरा# तिकय गय। मनुनु#य उच्च न्ययलोय क रा#्቏ प#ति्቏शनु (स#.नु0. 873 of 2020) म) परिरा आदे श तिदेनु0क 09.30.2020 क परिरापलोनु म) तिदेनु0क 10.11.2020 क एक ्቏#म गति; करा स#म0कनु क3 कय.वृह# तिकय गय। जिजसम) नुयब हस#लोदेरा राजस्वृ तिनुरा#्ቌक एवृ0 प्቏वृरा# शतिमलो + , स+ ह# अनु तिवृभीग#य अजिधकरा# लोक तिनुम.ण तिवृभीग + अनुवृ देकगण एवृ0 ቇኋमवृस# भी# शतिमलो ह@ए, जिजसम) मAक ज0च परा एवृ0 स#म0कनु करा पय तिक लोक तिनुम.ण तिवृभीग स  तिनुम.ण ह  (ROB) क लो -आउ्቏ तिनुम.ण स्+लो क ቇኋम कसमनुरा क3 भीतिम ख.नु. 94/2 राकब 0.020 ह ख.नु. 105/8 राकब 0.060 ह ख.नु. 105/44 राकच 0.121 ह ख.नु. 105/45 राकब 0.101 ह ख.नु. 105/46 राकब 0.061 ह ख.नु. 105/47 राकब 0.061 ह ख.नु. 105/48 राकब 0.060 ह , + ख.नु. 102/122 राकब 3.318 ह ज क लो ख.नु. 9 + क स#म0कनु तिकय गय औरा ्ቚश्नुध#नु ख.नु. 102/122 परा ह# तिनुम.ण पय गय। लोक तिनुम.ण तिवृभीग (स  ) भी-अज.नु नुक्श क अनु सरा तिकय गय। उ्ሹ स0ब0ध म) प0चनुम तिदेनु0क 10.11.2020 क 1यरा तिकय गय। जिजसम) यह पय गय तिक लोक तिनुम.ण (स  ) ቛኋरा ्ቚस्  भी-अज.नु क अनु सरा ह# आरा.ओ.ब# क तिनुम.ण वृ.मनु म) तिकय ज राह ह1। इस राह स उ्ሹ भीतिम क स0ब0ध म) स#म0कनु क3 कय.वृह# क3 ज च क3 ह1 एवृ0 मनुनु#य उच्च न्ययलोय क आदे श तिदेनु0क 09.03.2020 क परिरापलोनु म) भी# तिकय ज च क ह1। ्ቚकराण म) औरा कई कय.वृह# श ्ቧ नुहG। अH ्ቚकराण नुस्#ब्ቍ करा दे.दे.ह। नुयब हस#लोदेरा रायगढ़ (छ.ग.) 6. From the aforementioned specific part of the proceedings of the Tahsildar, it is not appearing that proceedings is recorded based on the report submitted by the authorities who have demarcated the land. Counsel for the State submits that though the report of demarcation could not be filed along with the reply, however, it is available in their record and placed before this Court for its perusal. The demarcation report is submitted before Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Raigarh in which Naib Tahsildar Raigarh is also a member of the team which 5 conducted demarcation. The portion of the report is extracted below for ready reference; ቦኍ#मनुL अनु तिवृभीग#य अजिधकरा# (रा.) कय.लोय रायगढ़ (छ.ग.) तिवृ्ቧय: स#म0कनु ्ቚतिवृ देनु क स0ब0ध म)। स0देभी.: कय.लोय अनु तिवृभीग#य अजिधकरा# (रा.) रायगढ़ क आदे श क. तिदे 12023 रायगढ़ तिदेनु0क 04.01.2023 उपरा्ሹ स0देतिभी. तिवृ्ቧयन्ग. मनुनु#य उच्च न्ययलोय छቈኍ#सगढ़ क WPC 3361/2021 क ቛኋरा म म्बई हवृ़቟ रा लो लोईनु क तिकम# 588/1-3 परा करा राड रायगढ़ तिकराड#मलोनुगरा LC NO. 289 म) तिनुम.णध#नु रा ल्वृ ओवृरा ब#ज तिनुम.ण कय. म) तिदेनु0क 20.06.2023 क तिनुदेPश क पश्चL यदे# क3 जम#नु क3 स्प्ቖ स#म0कनु रिराप्቏. म0ग तिकय जनु परा अ.तिवृ.अ रायगढ़ ቛኋरा तिदेनु0क 04.01.2023 क तिR चन्ቖኋकरा जयब हस#लोदेरा क3 उपቝኌस्+ति म) गति; देलो ቇኋम कसमनुरा, प.ह.नु0. ०४ एजिलोम) तिकरा़቟#मलोनुगरा हस#लो वृ जिजलो रायगढ़ रिराय भीतिम खसरा नु0बरा 102/1 स स्कय 3. 318 ह . वृ.मनु ख.नु0. 102/122 राकवृ 3.318 ह . क तिदेनु0क 20.012023 क यदे# एवृ0 ्ቚतिवृदे#गण क सचनु उपरा0 ቇኋमवृस#, क्቏वृरा क3 उपቝኌस्+ति म) आवृ तिदे भीतिम जरूरा नु0बरा 102/122 क स#म0कनु ቇኋम अमलो#भीAनु, कराभीनुरा क सराहदे# च0दे स तिमलोनु करा ह@ए झन्ड# A, B, एवृ0 C क सहय स स#म0कनु तिकय गय एवृ0 स#मतिचन्ह स अवृग करा तिदेय गय मAक परा वृदे# कय.पलोनु अतिभीय0 लोक तिनुम.ण तिवृभीग रायगढ़ स0भीग रायगढ़ क ቛኋरा पवृ. म) अजिधቇኋतिह भीतिम क खसरा नु0बरा 102/122 म) ह# स़቟क एवृ0 रा ल्वृ ओव्हरा ቜኍ#ज (ROB) क तिनुम.ण हनु पय गय ह1। अH ቦኍ#मनु ज# क सम्ቌ ्ቚतिवृ देनु अतिቇኋम कय.वृह# ह  सदेरा ्ቚस्  । स0लो्ሿH 1. स्+लो प0चनुम। 2. खसरा नुक्श । 3. सचनु प्ቔ। 4. तिZल्ड ब क । गतिह देलो 7. Perusal of the proceedings recorded by the Tahsildar on 21.06.2021 as also the report of the team demarcated the land, pursuant to the order passed by the High Court during pendency of this writ petition, would show that in the demarcation report, there is no specific mention as to the area on which, bypass road is constructed and the area on which the portion of the ROB was constructed, but for mentioning that the road as also the ROB was found to be constructed on a land which was 6 acquired earlier. 8. Right to Property is guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. When it is a claim of the petitioner that the petitioner is having ownership of the land, on which the agency of the State have constructed ROB then undisputedly, the State can use the land of the private person for public purpose, but only after acquisition and paying compensation to the person, in accordance with law. 9. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the nature of report which is submitted by the team conducted demarcation, during pendency of this writ petition and submitted it before the Sub-Divisional Officer, in the opinion of this Court, it is not reflecting that the demarcation was conducted following due process of law as provided under Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. It is for the authorities to specify the marking taken as spot to start demarcation and further upon identifying the land in what specific area over the petitioner’s land, road is constructed and specific area of the land on which ROB is constructed and what was the area acquired in the year 1980. 10. For the foregoing discussion, recording dissatisfaction on the proceedings of the demarcation report submitted by the respondent- State authorities, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Collector, Raigarh to get the land of the petitioner demarcated under his supervision and to prepare the demarcation report specifying as to the area of the land owned by the petitioner acquired in the year 1980, the area of the land of the petitioner on which the road was constructed and the area of the land owned by the petitioner on which ROB is constructed, if any. Let this exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order after issuing notice to 7 the petitioner. After preparing the report based on the demarcation to be conducted by the team as provided under the Land Revenue Code headed by the Tahsildar, copy of report to be supplied to the petitioner. It is further directed that if upon demarcation, it is found that the excess land of petitioner is used for purpose of the construction of road or the ROB then the land acquired of the petitioner pursuant to the land acquisition proceedings in the year 1980. The respondents will thereafter initiate proceeding of acquisition of such land and paying compensation. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Saurabh SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY