1 2026:CGHC:4396 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 524 of 2025 • Sukhru Prasad Tamrakar, S/o Late Raruha Prasad Tamrakar, Aged About 75 Years, R/o 38 Shankar Nagar, 10 Parpodi, Dhourabhata, Parodi, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1. Pardeshi Sahu, S/o Late Dular Sahu, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Sahu Para, Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.). 2. Bideshi, S/o Late Dular Sahu, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Sahu Para, Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.). 3. Khemchand Jain, S/o Jabarchan Jain, Aged About 77 Years, R/o Hatri Bazar, Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.). 4. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District Durg (C.G.). ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appears along with Mr. K.M. Singh, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior counsel appears along with Ms. Preeti Yadav, counsel. For State/Respondent No.4 : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 27/01/2026 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the Additional Judge, Dhamda to the Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 Durg (C.G.) (for short ‘Civil Judge’) in Civil Suit No.123A/2019, by which an application filed by the petitioner, wherein it was prayed that issue a fresh demarcation, which was earlier conducted and report dated 07.02.2024 was submitted by the Tehsildar, Dhamda (C.G.) has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the plaintiff, who has filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction in respect of suit property, which is comprised in piece of old Khasra No.864/2, area 0.06 decimal/0.024 hectare situated at Patwari Halka No.8, Tehsil Dhamda, District Durg (C.G.). Initially, an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC was filed by the petitioner for demarcation of the said land. Learned Civil Judge vide its order dated 02.11.2022 allowed the said application and Tehsildar Durg (C.G.) was appointed as a Commissioner and the writ of commission was also issued. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the writ of commission was issued to the Tehsildar Durg (C.G.) and the duties constituted upon the Tehsildar Durg (C.G.) to conduct the demarcation in the spirit of the order passed by the Civil Judge. Instead of doing so, he delegated/interested the said job to the Revenue Inspector and Patwari, who have conducted the demarcation and submitted the report, which was objected by the petitioner by filing an application under Section 151 of CPC. He further submits that the said application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide its impugned order. He submits that as demarcation was not conducted in terms of the order of Civil Judge, the impugned order may be set aside and a fresh demarcation may be conducted by the Tehsildar, Durg (C.G.) in compliance of the order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the Civil Judge. 4. Learned counsels for the respective respondents opposed the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that though, Tehsildar himself was not present during the course of demarcation, but the said demarcation was conducted in presence of petitioner by the Revenue 3 Officers. The report which was submitted by them has been accepted by the Commissioner and thereafter the same was submitted before the Civil Judge. Thus, as such there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner, thus the writ petition deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The fact is not in dispute that initially, vide order dated 02.11.2022 (Annexure- P/5), Civil Judge has appointed the Tehsildar, Durg (C.G.) as Commissioner to conduct the demarcation in respect of the suit property. It is also not in dispute that the Tehsildar himself was not present at the time of demarcation and it was being done by other Revenue Officials. The report of Tehsildar dated 06.03.2025 was also placed before the Civil Judge, which indicates that demarcation was done by the Revenue Inspector and the Patwari of the concerned Khasra. The report does not indicates, as to whether Tehsildar was present, rather it indicates that in his absence report was prepared, which was accepted by the Commissioner. 7. The order passed by the Civil Judge dated 02.11.2022 is explicit that the application was allowed and Tehsildar Dhamda was appointed as Commissioner and writ of commission was issued in his favour. Thus, this Court is unable to accept that no prejudice would be caused, as the duty was casted upon the Tehsildar to conduct the demarcation in spirit of that order. 8. The learned Civil Judge failed to appreciate this fact while dismissing the application under Section 151 of CPC. Thus, this writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 16.04.2025 is set aside. It is directed that Tehsildar, Durg (C.G.) would conduct a fresh demarcation in spirit of the order passed by the Civil Judge dated 02.11.2022 within a period of 60 days from today. 4 9. Needless to say, he may take assistance from revenue officials like Revenue Inspector or Patwari, if he so desire. The demarcation must be done in presence of stake holder in respect of the suit property. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition is allowed. 11. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Deepti Jha