1 2026:CGHC:2183 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 44 of 2026 1 - Jayesh Sahu S/o Late Khushiram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Jhalap Chowk, Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sanjay Tiwari S/o Late Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 65 Years Presently Residing At C/57, Tribhuvan Colony, Near Aakriti Greens, Girdhar Market Square, Post And P.S. Misrod Salaiya, Bhopal (M.P.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) / Caveator : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 14/01/2026 Heard on admission. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, CG in Case No. RN/12/R.A.-70/353/2025 by which the revision petition of the petitioner PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.01.15 10:26:16 +0530 2 under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short Code of 1959) was dismissed and order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sub- Divisional Officer and Tahsildar were maintained. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of the land comprised in piece of Khashra No. 52/1, P.H. No. 50, R.I.C. Khallari, Tehsil Bagbahara, District Mahsamund, CG. He submits that the respondent moved an application for demarcation of his land bearing Khashra No. 3.01 hectares, 1.33 hectares respectively situated at Village Siripathara, R.I. Circle Khallari, Tehsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund, CG under Section 129 of Code of 1959 before the Additional Tehsildar, Bagbahara and thereafter a demarcation was conducted and in that demarcation, the land of the petitioner was also demarcated. The demarcation was done behind the back of the petitioner and the signature which was shown to be in the demarcation report is not of the petitioner. He submits that on the basis of said demarcation report, the respondent filed an application before the Tehsildar Bagbahara for eviction of the petitioner from the subject land. The notices of the said application was never served upon and an ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner treating him to be encroacher of the land of the respondent. Against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 44(1) of Code of 1959 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bagbahara. That appeal was also dismissed by the SDO (Bagbahara) vide its order dated 27.12.2024. Against which the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division Raipur, CG. The said appeal also stood dismissed vide order dated 17.07.2025. Against which, a revision petition was preferred before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed without being admitted by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the basis for passing an order of eviction against the petitioner is the demarcation report 3 which alleged to have carried out by the revenue authority in absence of the petitioner. Fraud has been played and his signature is put the demarcation report and thus reliance placed by the revenue authority on that demarcation report cannot sustain scrutiny of this Court. The finding recorded by the Board of Revenue and the other revenue Courts mentioned above cannot sustain and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the demarcation report was never challenged by the petitioner rather the submission that the notice of the Tehsildar of the eviction proceedings was duly served which can be reflected from the SDO in which the petitioner has himself admitted the notice was served. He submits that four revenue Courts have given a finding of facts against the petitioner and this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India may not disturbed the finding of facts. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. The main crux of argument of Mr. Ankur Agrawal is that the eviction order by the Tehsildar is at the strength of demarcation report. He submitted that the demarcation report does not contain the signature of the petitioner rather somebody else as put the signature. This is a disputed question of fact which requires evidence to be led for its determinations as to whether the signature put in the demarcation report is of the petitioner or somebody else. Apart from this, the second submission is made that the land of the petitioner was also demarcated this cannot be looked into at this stage because all the Courts below from Tehsildar to Board of Revenue have given a categorically finding of fact that the petitioner is an encroacher. 8. Apart from this, it has to be seen that if the petitioner is inclined to protect his possession on the strength that he is not the encroacher, it would require evidence to be led and which can be done before a Civil Court. Thus taking into consideration the submission made and also 4 considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find irregularity or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order by the Board and all the orders passed by the Revenue Courts below. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 10. All pending applications, if any, shall stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan