35 HIGH CQURT QF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, C.J. WRITPETITION N0,441 OF 2006 PETITIONER Vs. RESPONDENTS Nankiram, aged about 45 years, S/o. Ghasiram Kurmi, Cultivator and resident of village Reewapar, P.C. No.6, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba, (C.G.) Ramnath, aged about 42 years, S/o. Punuram Kurmi, resident of village Reewapar, P.C. No.6, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba (C.G.) Tahsildar Korba Sub Divislon Officer, (Revenue), Korba (C.G.) State of ChhatSisgarh, Through- Collector, Korba (C.G.) Shri Saifuddin Rajas, Shri Utkarsh Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Dy.GAfortheState. The petitioner made an application to Patwari, Reewapar to surwey >nd demarcate the boundary line and identify the land of the petitioner bearing Survey No.1015/1 admeasuring 0.5 declmal and Sun/ey No.737/2 admeasuring 0.3 decimal, situate in village Reewapar, P.C. No.6, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba. The Patwarl, Ree'.wapar endorsed the petitioner that he wouid sur^'ey and demarcate the boundary line only after reconstruction of the viliage map whlch is said to have been iost. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner also filed an application before the S.D.0. (Revenue), Korba, the 3rd respondent herein, under Section 145 Cr.P.C.. The 3rd ^ 36 -a.- I? respondent called for a report from the Patoari, Reewapar as wel! as jurisdictional police. The Patv/ari, Reewapar submitted a report to the same effect as noted above. !n the circumstance and opining that there is no iikeiihood of breach of peace, the 3 respondent refused to initiate proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by the impugned order. (2) Having heard learned counse! for the parties, 1 am of th® considered opinipn that no exception could be taken to the action of the Patwari, Reewapar and the order made by the 3 respondent. It is needless to state that in order to survey and demarcate the boundary !ine of the subjecf land, village map is absoiutely necessary. However, fhe contention of the iearned counsel for the petitioner Is that the nephew of the petitioner highhandedly has been interfering with the petitioner's possession >nd enjoyment of the subject iand and, therefore, any delay on the part of the Patwari, Reewapar jn sun/eying and demarcating the boundary line of the subject land would resutt in great injury and hardship to the petitioner. It is not that the petitioner is left with no !egal remedy. The dispute is between two private parties, the petitioner and his nephew. If the nephew of the petitioner without any legal authority and justffication interferes with iawful possession and enjoyment of the petitfoner's property, certainly, it is open to the petitioner to workout his iegal remedies by Instituting a suit for declaration and injunction. It needs to be noticed that in a matter !ike this, civil suit is the effective and comprehenslve remedy. Either the 3 respondent orjthe revenue authority can grant any comprehensive relief to the petitioner, Looking from any angle, there is no warrant for this Court to step-in under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and interfere with the order made by the Patwari, Reewapar vil!age or the made by the S.D.Q. (Revene), Korba. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. This order, 37 -3. however, shall not come in the way of the petitioner to work out his legai remedies by instituting a civi! suit before the jurisdictional Civil Court. Ho\vever, it is expected that the Patwari, Reewapar shall take immediate steps to reconstruct the village map and on such reconstruction, without any further toss of time, he would take steps to dispose of the appiication of the petitioner for sun/ey and demarcation of the boundary line of the subject !and. No costs. ——— — i Sdf- Chief Justice \ •S^bb^ ^^<^M^I).b^uriti^'?'^_Ai.^^^- , .-^ »^A.-^: