1 2026:CGHC:24217 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2623 of 2026 1 - Durga Prasad Kashyap Son Of Late Rameshwar Prasad Kashyap Aged About 48 Years Resident Of Village - Newasa, Tahsil- Beltara, Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Revenue Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R.) Tahsil Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Nayab Tahsildar Tahsil Beltara District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Revenue Inspector, Tahsil Beltara, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Devi Prasad Kashyap S/o Late Rameshwar Prasad Kashyap Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Village- Newasa, Tahsil-Beltara District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Arvind Kumar Kashyap S/o Gangaram Prasad Kashyap Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Village- Newasa, Tahsil-Beltara District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - Rajkumar Kashyap S/o Bhagwati Prasad Kashyap Aged About 53 Years Resident Of Village- Newasa, Tahsil-Beltara District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 9 - Dhruv Kumar Kashyap S/o Bhagwati Prasad Kashyap Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Village- Newasa, Tahsil-Beltara District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For State : Mr. Anadi Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17.06.2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal action of respondent No. 5 in conducting the demarcation proceedings. It is contended that respondent No. 5 failed to properly mark the boundaries existing at the spot and also failed to indicate the encroached area by red ink in the demarcation map/report. As a consequence thereof, undue benefit has been extended to respondent No. 8, thereby depriving the petitioner of his lawful land. It is further submitted that respondent No. 5 has prepared and submitted an incorrect and illegal demarcation report before respondent No. 4. The petitioner has made representations/applications seeking correction of the said demarcation report; however, respondent No. 4 is not accepting or considering the petitioner's application, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the present petition. 2. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- 3 “(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record of the petitioner, for kind perusal. (ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased direction to the respondents regarding proper demarcation by the higher authorities of the petitioner's land in the interest of justice. to issue a writ order or (iii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ order or direction to the respondent no. 4 to consider and decide the application/objection of the petitioner. in the interest of justice. (iv) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of land bearing Khasra No. 2542/3 admeasuring 0.0160 hectare situated at Village Newasa, Tahsil Beltara, District Bilaspur (C.G.). For the purpose of establishing the correct boundaries of the said land and determining the extent of encroachment allegedly made by respondent No. 8, particularly in connection with Revenue Case No. 202604076300050/B-121/2025-2026 pending under Sections 133 and 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, the petitioner applied for demarcation of the land. Pursuant thereto, notices were issued and spot inspection was conducted; however, 4 respondent No. 5 failed to properly mark the existing boundaries on the spot and also failed to indicate the encroached portion in red ink in the demarcation report, despite the petitioner's objections. The petitioner thereafter submitted objections and applications seeking correction of the demarcation report, but respondent No. 4 neither accepted nor considered the same and, without affording any opportunity of hearing, proceeded to close the matter, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner and compelling him to approach this Hon'ble Court seeking appropriate relief. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an earlier demarcation of the petitioner's land was conducted; however, the same was not carried out in accordance with law, as the boundaries were not properly marked and the alleged encroached area was not correctly identified. It is further submitted that, for this reason, the petitioner moved a fresh application seeking demarcation in accordance with law. However, the said application has neither been duly considered nor decided on merits and has been closed by the competent authority, thereby causing prejudice to the petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the demarcation proceedings have already been conducted by the competent revenue authorities in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the report has been duly submitted. It is further submitted that 5 if the petitioner is aggrieved by the demarcation report or any action taken pursuant thereto, an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the relevant provisions of law. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is permitted to approach the competent authority. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh application before the concerned Tahsildar within a period of fifteen days from today. In the event such an application is filed, the concerned Tahsildar shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all affected parties, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of such application. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha