1 CGHC010251292026 2026:CGHC:32282 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3479 of 2026 1 - Abdul Halim S/o Late Hakim Abdul Hamid Aged About 70 Years R/o Talapara Road, Taiyyab Chowk Gali No. 1 Khanbadi, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. 2 - Additional Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. 3 - Tahsildar Bilaspur District Bilaspur, C.G. 4 - Revenue Inspector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. 5 - Haji Abdul Wahid S/o Late Hakim Abdul Hamid Aged About 75 Years R/o Raja Talab, Near Old Mosque, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate For State :- Mr. Amit Nayak, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28.07.2026 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. By way of this petition, following reliefs have been prayed:- “10.1 It is therefore prayed that, This Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to issue a writ/order/directions to quash the order dated 10.06.2026 (ANNEXURE P/1) & 09.02.2026 (ANNEXURE P/2), in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection raised by the petitioner before the concerned Tehsildar, stating that demarcation is not possible as a constructed house is existing over the land in question, has been turned down by the concerned Tehsildar on the ground that the petitioner is a third party and, therefore, cannot dispute the demarcation sought by another person. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 are brothers and there exists a dispute between them with regard to the property in question. It is contended that respondent No. 5, taking advantage of the said situation, has moved an application for demarcation, which is not maintainable and is not in accordance with law. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the order passed by the concerned authority is just and proper. It is submitted that the petitioner has no locus to dispute the demarcation proceedings initiated on an 3 application filed by the person claiming to be the owner of the property. It is further submitted that merely because the private respondent happens to be the petitioner's own brother, the petitioner cannot object to the demarcation proceedings sought by the said respondent. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner is disputing the demarcation proceedings initiated on the basis of an application filed by respondent No. 5, who happens to be his real brother. It is also apparent that the parties are litigating with regard to the property in question for a considerable period of time. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner against the demarcation proceedings cannot be said to be wholly without basis. However, this Court finds that the order passed by the concerned Tehsildar does not call for interference, as the respondent No. 5, claiming to be the owner of the property, is entitled to seek demarcation in accordance with law. 6. At the same time, considering the nature of dispute between the parties, the concerned Tehsildar is directed to issue notice to the petitioner as and when the demarcation proceedings are undertaken and to provide him an opportunity to participate in the said proceedings. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all his objections before the concerned authority during the course of demarcation proceedings. The concerned Tehsildar is further directed to issue notice to the petitioner as well as all adjoining landholders/concerned parties and thereafter 4 proceed to conduct the demarcation of the land in question strictly in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 129 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the rules framed thereunder. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha