c^</^^^-*^?u*^'ri-/v^n-'vl-A^ @ ^ '?".'w^ I/" 'Sii?1CjI© IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR {^L^ fC.G_.\ w.p/se^No. 4^<rf /2008 PETITIONER t^ fcespon«l<<<rvl' Thanwar, ^ S/o. Gorelal, aged about.'?o years, R/o. Khamhariya, Up-Tahsil-Bhilai-3, Tahsil-Patan, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Additional Collector, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Sub-Divisiona! Officer, Patan, District Durg (C.G.) Naib Tahsildar, Bhilai-3, District Durg (C.G.) Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh Bilaspur (Circuit Court Raipur Vipin Kumar, S/o. Murari Lal 3ha, R/o. Village-Khamhariya, Sub- Tahsil Bhilai-3, Tahsil-Patan, District Durg (C.G.)—^^ti"».w&^ -s-^f-^. . ~ WRIT PETITION U/A £&&OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA MIG CSMRTac^^iaMjilMi^K ^@tlift^U% Sinal6Ben : %HonfyiSSKri^u^tite^BKaisliilntKuitiaBM^ Wr Pe<:itioni(22»N6.i665l6f2008 ff vv^. .^ff^T.' ""•- Ttiahwar versus TheStateof<3hl-iattisgar|tanclgthers I h^] iOROEft ia@siEfor;s:^t-aii- PrashantKumarMishra Judge —~s-i'fKIS nwi i[l llil!:i: ihf!;: .jjllt' •;.!yMii :»•})$ '"££1. "8t {iili l;.tj;'n: liti'li h'li lin11.!:; •j.l 'M' :"::'\ ^ HIGHSCOUR't'<3f;©HMAT'TlSGARH^tBll..ASR(aEt SinaleBehch: H6ri*t>leiShris,.)BStiG!&RraShantKuiTiarMisHra Petitioner ReSDondents Writ Petition (227V No.6651 of.2008 Thanwar versus The Stafe of Ghhsrttisgarh amdothers Present: ; • : ', ' ., ;::^, ,: ; 1 - Shri Goutam Klietrapal/coynsel'fOrthepetitioner. Shn Ajay jDwiyedr, 'Deputy Goyernment Advocate fbr the State/respoi'idents No.1 to4, Shri Jitendra Naride, counsel fcirrespondentNo.S. Wrifcl^tioti^nderj^rtiele^BoftheGonstitutionoflndia .:',^:% ^BE:r:?;:-::.- :,,..: :-.':'.. • . .^rJ'..^|RassMjcri!|ii|^^»ei8ti ;:;;:.':: • ^ ;, : :,;: ;Th6pNtionerisaggnev6dbyttTeorderAnnexureP-1p by the Board of Revenue on ^g-8-2QQ8 iallowit-igi the |evision pref^rred By^ respondenfr NQ.Si^n^ ;aSiajc6nsequen(^ allp^ri^ l appliGatio p[^rred under^Sgerti^s2®©]Wtn&^i^ RetfenueG^de, 1^9 (henegfoiW'the^Revettueeode^^ ^ 2. i Thej|faGt& of the case, in short, are that in tlTg derr^ ! rep6n dat^d'12-12-2QOS^itK respect to^^^re bearing Ktiasra Ntd;255/1 ^area 126 heetares; it was; reported tBat j out ofthe tQtal area'oftResaid khasra nurhber, the petiti^herijs in !S| illegal possession on^ X).98 hef^re, pne Man^ posge^ten dn 0.19 Becfare a^ ManraKhah has^6®GUpj^ai^are^^^ j| ma^d an aRplieation?a^efc^i;tHe^^ ,'i N^l. 1: lij;i.[i 1.11 III Vii-:li Section 250 of the Revenye Code for reinstatement on Ihe larid on wHich the said persons have remained in illegal occupation. Ttie Naib-Tahsildar dismissed the application on 12-8-2005 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that the clemarcation repbrt has not been proved by submitting the original. The petitioner preferred an appeal before theSub-Divisiohal QfHcer (Revenue),Patan,whichwas alldwed^ 6-5-2006 <Annexure P-4). The Sub-Divisiohal Officer recorded a finding fhaf there is nofhing on the record to disbelieve- the demarcation report and that the petitioner's defence that he is in possession Oflafid bearing Khasra NQ.189area3.00 aeresforwhich he has been granted lease is not acceptable jin view of the demarcation repQnl. Ilie petitioner preferred aniappeal before the Additional ColleGtor, Durg. Hisappealwa;s;allowedon7-3-2Q07vicle Ahriexure P-5. The Additiohal -Colleetor recorded a findin& tl'f^ respondent No,6|has not proved;that hei^sdispossessed years fromthedateofsut)(TljSS;i0ri;j%;}lteiaRpfc siGe@rding1s the^Additional G^ limilatign^ritwa^incomplete. TKe;BoaFaiofiR6vShye Ras ^ the order 6flheiNlcliti6natCollectOrar|cl1hatof|thgNai^ and has maintainect the order passed by the^ub-.DivisiohalipffiEer|ih; favourofresponyent N0.6. I 3. Learned counsel for the;p^:Ucmer has^^ Tahsildar and the Addjtionat ©ollectoFhad ng^^ application ,on ttie ground that ithe revenye offieer si.ibmittilng; t|e \ ^emarcation report was not ^exatnjFied ;t6 prove the repQrt jai^d, \^ 'L' '--•^•^.^' .:''::1_^^ \ theref6re,fhe Board ofF^venye!fta6CQrTijmitte^^^ ;?:H.1^ Jl'^l/'^.i' .•-l?""^. ;;w& ^ .3' :• : . the revision. He woyld ^rther subm^ any case the application was barred by lirnitation. 4.Leamedcc)uniselforresporidentNo.6tiasarguedthatfromthe demarcation repprt ^nnexure R-2, it is proved that the petitioner isin illegal occupation c)f0.98Hectare land belonging to respondentNo.6 and that the said report having not been-'challenged by the petitioner, it has beicome fihal arid binding between the parties. He wouldalso subrnit ihat the report has been prepared by a reyenue authority and, tl'ier^fore, its authenticity was not in doubt and fhe Sub-Divisional Offieer i-igHtlyaeted upon the reportto pass an order in his favour an<3 tRa1:;tlTiK Boal^ 6f iRevenue was ^ in interfering v/ith tha order passed byllie Actditional Collector: 5. The order [Sassed by the Naib-Tahsilclar arid theJ\d£litional Collecrtor proeeedi on two groynds^^firstl^, the xerox ^ demarcation reporteouldnpt haveijBeeirs^iecl onand se^i^ly. tHe application ynder Section 25C) ,of tl-i©;;I|eveFiue©c>dewas Barred tsy limitation. . ,:;. :• : . '^;.::''^... : :• ' • :::: i': 6. AnapplicationunderSeGtioti250oftheRevenyeCo(;leicanbe moved by a Bfium/swam^ before Ihe Tahsiiyar fpr restoration jcifi possession within;2 years from ftie date^cifidispossession orifrorrrtlji&! date onwhieh |MssessionofsuGti^ersoFib0eoi^ th$ case may be. The secrtiOHi?dQes Hot prQvi^e r a&,1xa h[ov^|^te SftumfSM^m/wciyldccimetQ KrfOwaBouttl'iediSROssession^^Sec^^ 129 of the ReYenuelCode|^B|iROwere^tBe^ revenuecfficerempowered;to|,a(^^todem^ate^tre Wk --i..t!:illl '. y survey number 6r of a sub-divisioh or ofa plot number andcohstruct boundary marks thereon. Demarcation is generally applied by tlie Bhumiswami for establishing the identity of larld or to be confirmed about encroachment macle on his leind by any other perSon. In Bapulal vs.Siddu and others, 1998 Revenue NirnayaSS, it has beenheld that the period forstarting limitation ih a suitfor reGoyery of possession is the date on which measurement of the land was taken for demarcation. From ttie langyage of Section 129 of the Revenue Code 1t would furthei" appear that the said provision is in thenatureofproeeeclings^drawribytheTahsildarortheempowered revenue officerion the appliGalion-of a party interesfed and is ^ merely an administrative funcstion, Since a demareation report has its own eviderttjary value in^^es of eonfliGting claims regarding identity ofland and encroachrnent),the demarcation proCesdings are treatedas revenue proceedings andit:h^sbe6n held in Bharatjws. Ganpat, 1975 Revenue Nirnajya 1?& tliai an applieajtion uJFider Section2500ftheRevenueCodepresentedwitl-)in2yeairsfrorethe date ofdemafeation iswithin limitation. In viewof the above disci.ission, the firstrplank bf the cKall8rige on the groynd that the application was barred by limjtation is not acceptable. . . ' ,:;.::.:,•.—.,;/ , . '. 'i'' :1 7. The seeond limb of tHeargument raised by learned ccjunsel tor the petitioner is about the r^liarree p'laeed by the authorities on the demarcatibn report witbouf^exarnining the Revenue insf^ectBr. i./i'^ .i.l.i;''.ll As earlier noticed,the d^areationlproceedingsareiin^he?na^ ^evenueproceedingsarKliarei^merelyadmmistr^^ Vs' •i.?'? ^SB^-'-:^^ Gopal revenue officer, Thus, the demarcation report is in the nature of a publiodocument;whoseauthenticitycannotbedoubtedandtliatthe same does not rgqujre formal proof. Moreover, the petitioner has not challeng^d ttiei demarcatipn report by preferrihg any appeal or revision befoFe thie I'ligher revenue?C6urts, 1:herefore, the authenticity of the demarcatiori report canriot be challenged in the present proceedingsunder^Section250oftheRevenueCode. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no substance jn this writ petition under Article227 of the Gonstitution of India, which fails and is herebydismissed. r-——- pq: Sd//- , f PrashaiitKumarMishra| } Judge ®