'^f'.^^s K ^f^'s,^ ^N^^Su.^ S;^^ IN THE HQN'BLE^HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P.IArt 2271 No. ^3 °) of 2009 PETITIONER : Non-applicant No.2^^•s^. :!"^¥r^-"" yies' Ei?—"" RESPONDENTS APPLICANT Non-applicant No.l ^. - . . ^. . . ^t^'^wl^-<32- y""o : Smt. Savitri Maheshwari,_W/o. ^ Shri Rakesh Maheshwari, R/o. Ww Shop No.8, Gol Market, Sector-9, Bhilai, City Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Versus :1) Shashank Rastogi, son of late Shri V.P.Rastogi, R/o. House No.7-B/4, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) :2) Smt. Rani Chakraborty, W/o. Shri D.P.Chakraborty, R/o. MIG 591, Padmanabhpur, Durg (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RIR •?'• HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227t No. 839 / 2010 PETITIONER Non-appBcaht No. 2 RESPONDENTS AppLtCAisrr Versus Smt. Savitri Maheshwari Shcshank Rastogi and another Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioner. wprr pErmoN UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA ORALORDER (26.02.2018) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20-07-20C^ (Annexure P19) pass^l bythe Board of Revenue allowir^ the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 1. (2) The Board of Revenue has obser/ed Uiat since the order of demarcation and handir^ over the possession of the subject land to the petitioner herehi was passed on the basis of an ex^iarte demarcation repwt, wherein the interested parties i.e. the ownere e ihe adjoiniig land were nrt present, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the TahsiUar for fresh demarcati(mand thereafter for passing the finalorder. The Board of Revenue has also mentioned the discrepancies about the location of the subject land mentioned in the demarcatitxi report, the patwari map arri the exact location on the site. (3)- Leamed counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Board of Revenue ought not to have interfered with the caicurrent order passed by the sulxardinate revenue authorities and that the finding that there was no n<Ak;e to the oppos'rte party is perverse. {4} Thfe Court is not impressed with the argument, firstly, because it has been found.that on the date when the demarcation took placethe .4'' "") - -2-- interested parties were not present and, secondly, that there are dteputed que^lon of fact vis a vis the location of plot as mentioned by the Board of Revenue in its order. (5) Even (rtherwise, the Board of Revenue has remanded back the matter to the Tahsildar for a fresh demarcation and as such no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner as they wi!l have the opportunity to partteipate in the demarcation proceedings and raise ail such cwitention before the Tahsikter at the time of passing final order in the matter. (6) Counsel for the pet'rtioner prays that since the matter js pending for last about more than two years a directron may be issued to the Tahs'Mar to expedite the proceedings. (7) lt is ordered that the concemed Tahsiklar shall do well to dispose of the matter expeditiously by givii^ due opportunrties to all the parties. (8) Wtth this observation, the petftion is dismissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge t-