0 J IN THE HI6H COURT OF JUOICATURE ATBILASPUR .(^3 - /... WRIT PETITION N0. &t-i T OF 2006 PETITIONER vs RESPONbENTS •^'••~ A .,.•-;< ^."v ^. -:\^ 1^^ "!>• 'J'^ <"y o^ Smt. Sushila Ahuja, wife of Shri Ramesh Ahuja, aged about 49 years, resident of Near Satkar Hotel, Station Road, Raipur. 1. Smt. Sarita Jain, wife of Shri Sunil Jain, resident of Baijnathpara, Chikni Mandir Chowk, Raipur. 2. The Board of Revenue,, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Circuit Court at Raipur. 3. The Collector/Raipur.^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INblA "£ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR /ro PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P. (C) No. 6137/2006 Smt. Sushila Ahuja Versus Smt. Sarita Jain and others SB:- HON'BLE SHM N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri B.P. Sharnia, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Pramod Verma, Sr. Adv. with Shri Raghvedra Pradhan, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (7-3-2011) 1. Instant petition is directed against the order dated 23rd October, 2006 passed by the Board of Revenue/2nd respondent in Revision Case no. 235/A-12/2004-05. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are : the petitioner purchased a plot from Gitanjali Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Raipur (briefly, 'the society'). The said society had purchased different plots of land from different farmers and recorded their names in the land records. After purchase of said plot on 22-8-1995, the petitioner is in actual possession of the said plot and also *- constructed boundary wall and kept a guard after making Kaccha hut for his residence and further dug the borewell for petitioner's prospective need. 3. The petitioner made an application before Tehsildar under Section 129 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code (briefly the Code') for demarcation of the boundary of plot purchased by her from the said society. 4. Vide order dated 26-10-2004, the Tehsildar passed order. 5. The respondent No. 1 preferred revision under Section 50 of the Code against the above order. The Additional E" •S te«sy7J ^gf./ Collector vide its order dated 22-8-2005 held, the /<$ Tehsildar has passed the order without adopting proper procedure inasmuch the persons interested in the matter were not noticed including respondent No. 1 and allowed the revision. 6. The petitioner preferred second revision before the 2nd respondent. Vide impugned order, the 2nd respondent instead of remanding the matter to the Tehsildar, not only dismissed the revision but also directed the Tehsildar to handover possession of the land to respondent No. 1, purchased by her after its batankan on the spot. It was also observed, the mutation entries in favour of respondent No. 1 are valid and are based on her valid title; petitioner does not have the documents of purchase and also failed to demonstrate her title, after holding the petitioner failed to prove her title, also directed enquiiy regarding mutation entries entered in petitioner's favour. 7. Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner should submit, above directions given by 2nd respondenf are wholly iUegal, unwarranted and uncalled for, inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent was limited to examine legality and propriety of the order impugned and the order impugned is without jurisdiction. 8. On the other hand, Shri Pramod Verma, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 supported the t order and would subrait the order passed by the Tehsilar is not an order of demarcation within the meaning of Section 129 of the Code; the petitioner failed to show location/ Identity of her plot in the revenue map in absence ofwhich demarcation ofland is not possible. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 10. The directions issued by the Board of Revenue mentioned herein in its order in a revision filed under Section 50 of ^h,'! 11. the Code which arises out of the order passed undei'''<:i-— Section 129 of the Code are on the face without jurisdiction, unwarranted and uncalled for. The 2nd respondent in the facts and circumstances of the case should have remanded the matter to the Tehsildar for demarcation afresh in accordance with the provision contained under Section 129 ofthe Code. Whether or not, the land in question can be demarcated is a question to be decided by the Tehsildar. Instead of doing so, it had passed the order in favour of respondents without there • being any application therefor. For the reasons mentioned above, the order impugned is on the face illegal, not sustainable in law and deserves to be quashed. The petition is allowed. The order iinpugned is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Tehsildar to proceed with demarcation in terms of Section 129 of the Code after observing every aspect of the matter and after affording due opportunity ofhearingto both the parties. The parties are directed to appear before fhe Tehsildar on 11-4-2011. Since the matter is very old, the Tehsildar is directed to complete proceedings within a period of 5 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- N.K. Agarawal Judge 1^