MOHIT KUMAR Vs. ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ appeal is to the order dated 15.11.2019 passed in WPC No.1134/2019 by which the learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated 28.8.2018 (Annexure P-1 to writ petition) passed by the Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Case No.M/02/R/A-12/183/2015 and directed respondent No.3-Collector, District Bilaspur to conduct fresh demarcation of land in question after re-establishing permanent boundary mark (chaanda) as per procedure laid down in the Land Record Manual Instructions based on the Chhattisgarh Bhu Abhilekh Niyamawali.

(2.) Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that initially the order of demarcation dated 17.11.2014 passed by the Tahsildar,Bilha, District Bilaspur in Case No.02/A-12/2014-15 was challenged by petitioner/respondent No.1 before the Board of Revenue by filing a revision under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code of 1959'), which came to be allowed vide order dated 18.6.2015 and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilha was directed to constitute a team of Revenue Inspectors to carry out fresh demarcation of disputed lands and to submit demarcation report. In compliance of order dated 18.6.2015, a team was constituted and thereafter demarcation of boundaries of disputed lands was conducted. The Tahsildar, Bilha submitted his report vide letter dated 16.12.2015. On an objection being raised by applicant/ respondent No.1 herein against said demarcation report, the Board of Revenue directed the Tahsildar, Bilha to apportion lands of applicant & non-applicant and to demarcate land of applicant bearing Khasra No.297 and land of non-applicant bearing Khasra No.311/1, 311/2 & 312 by constituting a team of Revenue Inspectors. It was also directed that for carrying out demarcation proceeding, the place of permanent boundary mark (chaanda) be dug out to see whether remnants of traverse (chaanda) is there or not and if not, then to establish traverse (chaanda) on the spot after following the procedure prescribed in this regard. Based on the aforesaid direction, on 5.4.2017 the Tahsildar had submitted demarcation report along with Panchsala, field book, B1 & map. On the basis of report submitted by the Tahsildar, the objection raised by petitioner/ respondent No.1 was rejected vide order dated 1.7.2017 against which a writ petition was preferred by respondent No.1 before the High Court, which came to be registered as WP (227) No.306/2018. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.6.2018 allowed said writ petition; set aside order of Tahsildar dated 1.7.2017 and remanded back the matter to the Board of Revenue for fresh adjudication with a direction to give finding whether compliance of subsequent demarcation was made as per provisions of Sections 121 & 124 of the Code of 1959 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Board of Revenue was further directed to conclude the proceeding within a period of 45 days.

(3.) On remand of case, the Board of Revenue again took up the matter for consideration and after hearing both sides, has held that demarcation was conducted by the team of Revenue Inspectors in accordance with the procedure prescribed in this regard and taking note of the provisions of Section 127 (2), 129 & Rules 6 & 7 of the Code of 1959 that when traverse mark is not traceable even after digging of land on spot, then further course which is available for the revenue officials is to create/install a permanent boundary mark / traverse based on provision of Section 124 of the Code of 1959. Except the objector/applicant therein (petitioner in writ petition), all other persons, who were noticed for demarcation, appeared on the date of demarcation and the proceeding of demarcation was conducted by the Revenue Inspectors on 23.3.2017 in accordance with law.