Petstloner Defendant Writ Petition of 2088 Smt.Rashmi Mlrani, wlfe ofShri Blpln Bhal Mirani, aged about 42 years; resldent of Aamapara, Dhamtart. District Dhamtari (CG) ResDGndents Plalnts'ff Versu's State of Chhattlsgarh, through the Secretary, Ministpy" of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. Smt.Kachra Bai, daughter . of Bodhlram Sshu, resident of Purasna, Tehssi & District Dhamtari (CG) (Writ Petitson underArtlcle 227 ofthe Constltution of 1. 2. "Y< IVIr.B.P.Shsrma, counsei for the petitjoner. Mr.Sumlt Jhanwar, PaneJ Lawyer for respondent No.l/State. Mr.H.B.Agrawal, SenJor Advocate with Mr.Raghvendra Pradhan, counsel for respondent No.2. (SB: -Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Stiarma, <j.) ORDER (22-7-2011) By this petltion under Artlcie 227 of the Constltution of India the petitioner has chailenged the iegailty and propriety of the order dated 29.7.2008 (Annexure P/1) passsd by the Board of Revenue jn Revenue RevisioR Case NO.RN/14/A-12/1255/2006, reverslng the order dated 3.10.2006 (Annexure P/2) passed bythe Additional Coilector, Ralpur In RevlsloR Case No.-150/A-l 2/2005-06, whereby the Additional ColSector has reversed the order 12.5.2006 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Tahsildar, Raipur in Revenue Case No.51W12/2005-06, whereby objectlon of the present petltjoner has been dlsmissed reiatlng to stay of demarcation. 2. I have heard learned counsei for the parties and perused the aforesasd orders of revenue authoritles, . applioations, demarcstson report dated 6.5.2006 submltted by revenue inspecfor before the TahsiSdar, Raipur in Revenue Case No.51/A/12/'2005-06. 3. As per order dated 12.5.2006 passed by the Tahsildar, Raipur, at the Instance of respondent No.2 Smt.Kachra Bai khasra No.410/1, area 0.528 ^ ""%^ i !; ^.^ -^- hectare was demarcated by revenue inspector and submitted Its report dated 6.5.2006, in v./hlch revenue Inspector has mentloned that in the revenue record aforesaid iand has not been divided into parts but some poiis and fenclng were found In part of the iand and temporary road of 11 metre & 8 metre was aiso found In the piot which was not constructed or Instajied by respondent No.2 or any person on behalf of respondent No.2. Revenue inspector has speGlflcaiiy mentioned that in the absence of any chanda munara demarcation was not possible, but thereafter QH the basis of some marks of other fieid the iand has been demarcated. In the demarcatlon report it has been specificaily mentloned that IR the possession of respondent No.2 is found subsequent to the possesslon of other persons or any dlspute relating to the possession, then she would be liabie for aforesaid dispute. As per order dated 12.5.2006, the present petltioner has specificslly claimed and objected that they are purchaser of the part of aforesaid khasra number and they are in possesslon, they have constructed boundsry wail by instaiilng polis and fencing. After hearing the parties, the TahsJldar has rejected the objection on the ground that demarcatlon process and deiivery of possession process are not one and the same. Same was chailenged before the Additionai CoSlector, Raipur and vide order dsted 3.10.2006 the AddJtional Coiiector has quashed the aforesald order passed by the Tahsiidar, Ralpur on the ground that aforesaid iand has been divided jnto 21 parts and before demarcatlon notice has not been serv'ed to ai{ the effected persons i.e, 21 persons. Same was chailenged before the Board of Revenue by respondent No.2 and by order impugned the Board of Reyenye has reversed the order passed by the Additionai ColSector and restored the order passed by the Tahsiidar on the ground that notice has been published in iocai dajly newspaper which Vv'as sufficient servlce. 4. Learned couhsei for the petitioner submits that the present petitloner is In possession of part of the iand whlch has been observed by revenue inspector in demarcatlon report, therefore, the present petltloner was necessary party at the time of demarcatlon, but notice has not been served upon her, therefore, demarcatlon report and affirmatlon of such demarcation is of nuiSity. v^ >'c\- .«':^a.it 9 /' :sw' -^^ 5- 5. Learned PaneS Lawyer for respondsnt No.t/State formaily opposes the petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counseS for respondent No.2 opposes the petltlon and submits that on the basis of reasonabie servlcs by pu&Sicatlon of notice In nev<%p8perthe Board of Revenue nas rightiy quashed the order ofthe Additlonal Coiiector and by passing such orderthe Board of Rsvenue has not committed any iilegallty warrantlng interference In exerdse of revislonal jurisdiction. 7. Demarcatlon report, order dated 12.5.2006 passed by the Tahsiidsr, Ralpur and order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue do not reveal that notice has been served to the present petitloner. Order of the Additjonal Coliector reveals that the iand has been divided into 21 parts. At the time of demarcation jt has been noticed by revenue Inspector that ourrent revenue record which v/as In possession of patwarl does not reveal such dlvision of the Sand but there was fencing on the part of land and construction of road, even demarcation In the absence of any defiRite chsnds munars was not posslble, then with the help of some corner of other fleid he has demarcated the iand, jn whlch he has specjficaliy mentloned thst in case of any dispute relating to the possesslon, respondent No.2 wouid be ilabie for such dlspute. 8. Demarcation report rsveals that revenue inspector has not demarcated the land In accordance with the procedure prescribed; nottee has not been sepved upon the petltloner and objection fiied on behalf of the petltloner has been rejected by the TahslEdar whlch has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue. 9. 3n these circumstsnces, the petitlon is disposed of with the observatlon and dlrectlon that demarcatlon report dated 6.5.2006 will not effect the riQht, obligations and possesslon of the petltioner over any part of above sald land. Ho order as to costs. —— Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge ^0 ^ ^