1 2026:CGHC:26938 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5419 of 2022 1 - Sharifulla S/o Jarifulla Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Lakhanpur, Police Station And Post Office Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Abdul Vahid Khan S/o Balayat Khan Aged About 86 Years R/o Village- Lakhanpur, Police Station And Post Office Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Surugja, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For State/respondent No.2 : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, PL. SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/07/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been preferred against the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh Bilaspur in Case No.RN/16/R/B-121/164/2020 whereby, it has allowed the revision filed by Respondent No.1 and has held that petitioner has encroached upon the land of Respondent No.1 and directed Tehsildar Lakhanpur to AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.07.03 09:59:02 +0530 2 proceed on application of Respondent No. 01 under Section 250 of the Chattisgarh Land Revenue Code for eviction of petitioner on the basis of demarcation report dated 07.01.2021. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is owner of land bearing Khasra no. 1354 & 3158 situated in Village Lakhanpur, District. Surguja, C.G. and his name is also recorded as owner and possession holder of the land in revenue records. respondent no. 1/applicant filed an application under section 250 of C.G.L.R.C. before Tahsildar Lakhanpur, District. Surguja, C.G. in the year of 2012 against the petitioner stating that he is owner of land bearing khasra no.1348, 1349 total area 15 dismil land situated in Village Lakhanpur, District. Surguja, C.G. (Herein after will be referred as land in question). It was further stated in application that in eastern side of khasra no. 1348 non applicant/petitioner encroached about 5-6 meter land in length and in north-southern side about 20 meter land in width by raising construction of bricks wall. It was further stated that on being stopped by the respondent, petitioner did not stop the construction and threatened the respondent thereafter respondent made report in police station, Lakhanpur on 16.05.2012 however nothing happened therefore vacant possession be delivered to him from petitioner by removing encroachment of petitioner. On application of respondent no. 1 Tahsildar Lakhanpur registered the application as Rev. Case No. 100B 121/2011-12 and issued notice to the petitioner. Apart from this 3 Tahsildar sought spot inspection report from concerned Halka Patwari and Revenue Inspector. The petitioner/non applicant appeared in the case and denied all allegations leveled against him in application. It was specifically denied that he encroached any portion of land of respondent and constructed bricks wall/boundary wall on it. It was stated by petitioner, that he is owner of khasra no. 1354 & 3158 and after getting demarcation he constructed boundary wall on his own land. The concerned Halka Patwari conducted spot inspection in presence of both parties and thereafter submitted spot inspection report to the effect that petitioner/non applicant did not encroach alleged portion or any portion of land in question and he constructed his boundary wall on his own land after carry out demarcation of his land and two Mango Trees are standing on petitioner's land and it is not the land of respondent/applicant. Considering spot inspection report of Halka Patwari and hearing both parties Tahsildar vide well reasoned order dated 22.04.2016 dismissed application filed by the respondent/applicant in holding that applicant failed to prove alleged encroachment of non applicant/petitioner on his land even he failed to prove essential elements of section 250 of C.G. L.R.C. Against order of Tahsildar, respondent filed appeal before Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Udaipur, District. Surguja, C.G. which is registered as Appeal Rev. Case. No. 164/B121/2016-17. The said appeal was dismissed by SDO vide order dated 09.08.2017 upholding order of Tahsildar. Being 4 aggrieved from order passed by SDO respondent filed second appeal before learned Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur which was also dismissed by Commissioner vide order dated 14.08.2020. It is submitted that during pendency of second appeal before Commissioner, respondent himself filed application for demarcation of land in question before Tahsildar Lakhanpur. On application of respondent Tahsildar directed the concerned Revenue Inspector to carry out demarcation of land in question upon which Revenue Inspector carried out demarcation of land in question on 20.02.2020 and submitted his report before Tahsildar which was against respondent no. 1. Against order dated 14.08.2020 respondent filed revision before Board of Revenue, Bilaspur which was registered as RN/16/R/B-121/164/2020 however in said revision notice was never issued to the petitioner and petitioner was unaware in respect of pendency of said revision. Suddenly petitioner received notice from Court of Tahsildar Lakhanpur in Rev. Case No. 20220102050029A- 70/2021-22 in the month of April, 2022 along with copy of application filed by the petitioner before Tahsildar under section 250 of C.G.L.R.C. It was stated in said application that respondent got carried out demarcation of land in question through Superintendent of Land Record (SLR), Ambikapur on 15.12.2020 and according to demarcation report petitioner encroached (3.00+4.50)-3.75 11.65-43.69 sq. meter in northern side surrounding boundary wall and constructed Toilet, 5 Bathroom within boundary wall, in eastern side 1.50 meter and southern side 0.00 meter (1.50/2+0.00)0.75 16.50 sq. meter surrounding boundary wall on land in question. It is also stated in application that respondent filed revision before Board of Revenue against order passed by Revenue Courts under section 250 of C.G.L.R.C. and Board of Revenue vide order dated 04.03.2021 (impugned order) disposed of the revision directing the Tahsildar to proceed in application of respondent no. 1 filed under section 250 of C.G.L.R.C. according to demarcation report of SLR and after hearing both the parties. After receiving copy of impugned order from Court of Tahsildar in month of April 2022, petitioner at first came to know in respect of passing impugned order by Board of Revenue and also came to know in respect of manipulated and one sided demarcation carried out by SLR, Surguja, Ambikapur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is crystal clear from perusal of demarcation report and all documents attached with demarcation report that demarcation report was prepared on back date however after overwriting in date, it was submitted on 07.01.2021. It is also clear that earlier respondent was not agreed from demarcation report however later on after cutting word "not" it was submitted showing that respondent is agreed from demarcation report. Similarly in other documents so many overwriting and cutting are made either by Revenue Authorities or by respondent himself which becomes 6 suspicious to those documents. She submits that without issuing notice to the petitioner and without affording opportunity of hearing to him, the Board of Revenue has passed the impunged order relying upon the demarcation report which was prepared without issuing notice to the petitioner and in absence of petitioner, hence, the impugned order in not in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that that notice of demarcation was sent to the petitioner who himself chose not to appear in the said proceedings, as such, he cannot point finger over the other party for his own negligence. He submits that upon consideration on the merits of the case, the Board of Revenue has passed the passed the order which cannot be said to be invalid. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused order dated 04.03.2021, it appears that the Board of Revenue has passed the impugned order in a very cursory manner without calling the records of the case though revisional jurisdiction is confined to decide the question of law involved in the revision, however, if the Board intended to remand the matter and thereby directed to consider the mater on the basis of demarcation report, at least, demarcation report and the proceedings of demarcation should have been called by the Board before making such a direction, which has not been done. Further, from the perusal of the letter of President, Land Record, Sarguja, it appears that there is anomaly in the same, the date has 7 been corrected from 07.02.2020 to 07.01.2021 and in the notice of demarcation, the date of issuance of notice is also not mentioned. The date was fixed to be 15.12.2020(illegible) and has been manipulated. Further, after signing upon the said demarcation report, Respondent No.1 stated that ‘he is not agreed’ with the Panchnama, however, thereafter, he has superstriked the ‘no’ part making his statement as ‘he is agreed’ by the Panchnama. 6. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the demarcation seems to be not in accordance with law, therefore, without relegating the matter to the Board of Revenue, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the concerned Tehsildar to demarcate the land in question of Respondent No.1 bearing Khasra no.1348, 1349 area 0.045 and 0.016 hectare land situated in Village Lakhanpur, District Surguja, C.G. while giving due opportunity of hearing to the relevant parties. It is made clear that first a notice has to be issued to the parties informing them about the demarcation to be conducted and thereafter, the demarcation is to be conducted in accordance with Section 129 of the CG Land Revenue Code and rules made thereunder. 7. The aforesaid exercise be done after completion of monsoon season, in the month of October, 2026 while giving proper notice as directed above. 8. Till demarcation is done, parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of their respective lands. 8 9. The parties are at liberty to challenge the said demarcation before the appropriate forum. 10. With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash