1 2026:CGHC:18534 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1827 of 2026 1 - Balud Ram Sahu S/o Kartik Ram Sahu Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Jhumka, P.S. Sarsiwa District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 2 - Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Balud Ram Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Jhumka, P.S. Sarsiwa District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Capital Complex Atal Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 3 - Deputy Collector, District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - The Sub Divisional Magistrate , Bilaigarh District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar, Sarsiwa District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 6 - Revenue Inspector, Shri Vikas Kumar Sahu, Circle Sarsiwa District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 7 - Patwari , Halka No. 09, Tahsil Sarsiwa District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 8 - Sdop, Shri Vijay Kumar Thakur, Thana Bilaigarh District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 9 - Sdop, Shri Manish Kumar Thana Sarangarh District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 10 - Kaushal Joshi S/o Late Kartikram Joshi Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Jhumka P.S. Sarsiwa , District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 11 - Radhadevi Joshi W/o Kaushal Joshi Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Jhumka P.S. Sarsiwa , District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 12 - Vishal Joshi S/o Kaushal Joshi R/o Village Jhumka P.S. Sarsiwa , District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 13 - Ronit Joshi S/o Kaushal Joshi Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Jhumka P.S. Sarsiwa , District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. J. K. Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23/04/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That, petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the proper demarcation/batankan of Khasra Nos. 246/2 and 253/3, Village Jhumka, strictly in accordance with law. 3 10.2 Quash and set aside the illegal investigation report submitted by the Patwari and Revenue Inspector dated 18.09.2024, 27.06.2025 & 11.11.2025 being arbitrary and illegal. 10.3 Issue a direction/order to the to register a First Information Report (FIR) against the private respondents and involved officials, and to ensure a time- bound, fair, and impartial investigation into the illegal and forcible cutting and removal of crops from the Petitioner's land. 10.4 Direct the respondent no. 10 to 13 to remove the blunt in the agricultural land. 10.5 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be also kindly be granted.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioners have approached this Court stating that the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 246, 252, 253, and 258 were not demarcated since the year 1927, and the first demarcation exercise was carried out only in the year 2023. According to the petitioners, such delayed demarcation has led to serious discrepancies and disputes regarding boundaries and possession. It is the case of the petitioners that Petitioner No. 1 had purchased agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 246/2 admeasuring 0.186 hectare through a registered sale deed dated 4 04.01.2008 and has been in continuous possession and cultivation of the said land since then. It is further contended that the petitioner had taken possession of approximately one acre of land, which included portions of Khasra Nos. 246 and 253. However, due to an alleged clerical or record-related error at the time of registration, the land was reflected in fragmented form, leading to confusion regarding its actual boundaries. The petitioners further submit that several adjoining landholders have also purchased lands from the same vendors over a period of time through different sale deeds, which has further complicated the issue of identification and demarcation of the respective lands. Due to the alleged incorrect demarcation carried out by the revenue authorities, particularly the Patwari, disputes arose between the petitioners and private respondents. It is further stated that the petitioner had submitted a complaint dated 28.10.2023 before the concerned authorities regarding the erroneous demarcation; however, no effective action was taken. The situation further escalated when, according to the petitioners, private respondents attempted to harvest crops from the petitioner’s land, leading to lodging of an FIR by the petitioner. It is also alleged that thereafter a false counter FIR was lodged against the petitioner by the private respondents with an intention to pressurize the petitioner and deprive him of his lawful rights. The criminal proceedings arising therefrom have been stayed by this Court. The petitioners further contend that despite making 5 several representations to the revenue authorities for correction of demarcation and proper identification of land, the authorities have failed to take any concrete action. It is also brought on record that an enquiry was conducted by the revenue authorities, wherein it was noted that the petitioner’s land is divided into parts and that certain private respondents had constructed a bund on Khasra No. 252. However, according to the petitioners, the enquiry reports are erroneous, arbitrary, and not based on actual possession or historical revenue records, thereby adversely affecting their rights. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire dispute has arisen due to incorrect and arbitrary demarcation carried out by the revenue authorities after an inordinate delay of several decades. It is contended that despite the petitioners being in settled possession of the land since 2008, the authorities have failed to properly identify and demarcate the land in accordance with law. It is further submitted that repeated complaints and representations made by the petitioners have not been duly considered, and the revenue authorities have failed to discharge their statutory duty of maintaining accurate land records and conducting proper demarcation. Learned counsel submits that the impugned enquiry reports are perverse and based on conjectures, as they do not take into account actual possession and historical records. It is also contended that due to the inaction and arbitrary conduct of the authorities, the petitioners are being subjected to 6 continuous harassment and are being deprived of their lawful possession and livelihood, thereby violating their constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel thus submits that appropriate directions are required to be issued to the respondent authorities to carry out proper demarcation/batankan of the land in question in accordance with law and to rectify the revenue records so as to protect the rights and possession of the petitioners. 4. Learned State counsel, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the dispute raised in the present petition pertains to demarcation, possession, and correction of revenue records, for which efficacious alternative remedies are available under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. It is contended that the petitioners can very well approach the competent revenue authorities by way of appropriate proceedings for redressal of their grievances. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage in view of availability of such statutory remedies. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in response, submits that without pressing the petition on merits, the petitioners may be granted liberty to avail the alternative remedy available under the relevant provisions of law. It is prayed that appropriate direction be issued permitting the petitioners to approach the competent revenue authority for redressal of their grievance in accordance with law within a stipulated time. 7 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From the pleadings, it is evident that the dispute raised by the petitioners primarily relates to demarcation of land, correction of revenue records, and issues concerning possession, which involve disputed questions of fact. Such matters fall within the domain of the competent revenue authorities under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which provides an efficacious alternative statutory remedy. 8. In view of the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned competent authority for redressal of their grievance in accordance with law. In case such application/representation is filed by the petitioners, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all affected parties. 9. With the aforesaid liberty and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge