1 CGHC010337672026 2026:CGHC:38950 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1125 of 2026 Smt. Laxmi Bai W/o Late Shersingh (D/o Late Paharsingh) Verma Aged About 53 Years R/o House No.81, Vidya Nagar, Ward No.2, Near Gali, Bemetara District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Hukum Singh S/o Late Paharsingh Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No.2 Pikri (Maanpur) Tahsil And District- Bemetara (C.G.) (Defendant No.1) 2 - Khuman Singh S/o Sukhram Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Aalesur Post- Jara, Tahsil- Tilda, District- Raipur (C.G.) Defendant No.2 3 - Shanti Kumar S/o Paharsingh Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No.2, Pikri (Maanpur) Tahsil And District- Bemetara (C.G.) (Defendant No.3) 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bemetara District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, P.L. for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 02/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.07.2026 passed by SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.09.07 11:12:48 +0530 2 learned Second Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bemetara in Civil Suit No. 67-A/2023, whereby the objection filed by the petitioner against the Commissioner report submitted by the Court Commissioner on 28.01.2026 has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court, who is prosecuting a suit for declaration of her easementary right over the suit property and permanent injunction and also for damages. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is using the subject land as the access way to approach her agricultural field since more than 30 years and thereby, she acquired easementary right over there. During the pendency of the suit, on an application made by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC, the learned trial Court appointed the Superintendent Land Record or Assistant Superintendent Land Record posted at District Collectorate, Bemetara as Commissioner and called their report with respect to the claim of the plaintiff. He would further submit that in the memo dated 01.10.2025, the learned trial Court directed the revenue authorities to specific mention about the four corners and access way, if any, over the land Khasra No. 846/1, area 1.17 hectare. However, in the document submitted by the revenue authorities alongwith the report dated 28.01.2026, there is no answer about the direction given by the learned trial Court in the memo dated 01.10.2025. He would further submit that no demarcation was carried out by the revenue authorities and the panchnama prepared on 27.11.2025 does not satisfy the query made by the learned trial Court in the memo dated 01.10.2025, therefore, the plaintiff filed an application for rejecting the report submitted by the 3 concerned revenue authority dated 28.01.2026 and for calling of fresh Commissioner report from the competent revenue authorities. He would further submit that the issue involved in the case regarding easementary right over the subject property requires proper demarcation and specific Commissioner report, yet the learned trial Court rejected the objection, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the learned trial Court may be directed to call the fresh demarcation report by appointing a competent revenue authority not below the rank of SDO (Revenue) as the Commissioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the order dated 19.09.2025, it appears that considering the issue involved in the civil suit, the learned trial Court appointed the Superintendent Land Record or Assistant Superintendent Land Record, District Collectorate, Bemetara as the Commissioner and called the report on the issue that "क्या खसरा क्रमां क 846/1 राकबा 1.17 हेक्टेयारा मां क षि कया क लिए जाने हेतु खसरा ने बारा 858, 851, 852, 853/2, 853/1 तुथा 857 स हेकरा जाने हेतु रास्तु अस्तिस्तुत्व मां हे# अथाव नेहे$." A memo dated 01.10.2025 has also been issued to the concerned revenue authorities pursuant to the order dated 19.09.2025 which is being annexed at page No.42 of the petition, in which also the learned trial Court has directed to specify the aforesaid requirement in the Commissioner report. 6. From perusal of the documents annexed at page No. 44 to 49, it transpires that on 27.11.2025, the panchnama was prepared by the 4 revenue authority on the spot in which the following has been averred :- "आजा दि'ने क 27.11.2025 क ग्रामां चाराभाठा प०हे०ने० 08 रा०षिने०मां० थाने - मांहेतुरा, ग्रामां - बामांतुरा मां व'ग्रास्तु भा.मिमां ख०ने ० 846/1 राकबा 1.17 हे० मां क षि कया हेतु जाने क लिए रास्तु क अस्तिस्तुत्व क स बा ध मां स1मां कने हेतु कयाया कक्टेरा भा. अभिभाख शाख क परिरातु ज्ञापने क्रमां क/1034/भा.०अभिभा०/अ०भा.०अ०/2025 बामांतुरा दि'ने क 18.11.2025 क परिरापने मां मां6क जा चा एव स1मां कने हेतु गदिठातु ' जा षिक श्री1 राध षिकशाने सहे०अ० भा. अभिभाख, प्रेमांप्रेकशा षितुवरा1, क्ष्मां1 नेरायाण शामां, शा षितुक मांरा रा षिने तुथा श्री1 सराशा वमां हेल्क पटेवरा1 एव षिवजान्द्र वमां प हे० 22 मां6क परा उपस्थिAतु हुए । मां6क परा पक्षकरागण अथाव उनेक प्रेषितुषिनेमिध उपस्थिAतु राहे । मां6क जा चा क '6राने आव'क क द्वारा बातुया गया षिक आवदि'तु भा.मिमां कF स1मां स स बा मिधतु कई षिवव' नेहे1 हे# । मां6क परा चा. षिक षिवगतु 20 वH स खतु1 नेहे1 हेने क कराण आवदि'तु भा.मिमां जा गनेमां भा.ख ड क रूप मां परिरावर्तितुLतु हे गई जिजासमां कटेN वक्ष ग हुए हे# । भा.मिमां परा नेप षिकया जाने स भाव नेहे$ हे# । आवदि'तु भा.मिमां बा1चा खरा मां हे# एव मां6क परा कई भा1 रास्तु भा.मिमां तुक जाने क लिया मां6जा.' नेहे1 हे# । प चानेमां अधलिखिखतु व्यस्थिक्तुयाQ कF उपस्थिAषितु मां बानेया गया । पढकरा सनेया गया ।" 7. When the learned trial Court has directed to mention about the existence of any access way, if any, in the subject land of Khasra No. 846/1, area 1.17 hectare, the concerned revenue authority has mentioned in its panchnama that there is no access way exist on the subject land and it was the land over which the trees have been grown up and it now remains like jungle land. 8. Since the revenue authorities have specifically mentioned in their panchnama that there is no access way exist over the subject land of Khasra No. 846/1, area 1.17 hectare, it cannot be said that the further Commissioner report is required for further elaboration of the factual aspect of the subject matter. The learned trial Court in its order dated 06.07.2026 also observed that at the time of demarcation/inspection of the spot, the son of the plaintiff was present there and he signed the panchnama. The entire exercise of demarcation/inspection of the spot was carried out in presence of the representative of the plaintiff, 5 therefore, her objection cannot be sustained and the same has been rejected. 9. From perusal of the entire material produced by the petitioner in the present writ petition and consideration of the learned trial Court, I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in rejecting the objection of the plaintiff to the Commissioner report. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate remedy before the learned trial Court by making appropriate application. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit