ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI Vs. MOHIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, whereby the Board of Revenue has upheld the demarcation report dated 28.03.2017 submitted by revenue authorities vide communication dated 05.04.2017. Initially in earlier round litigation, the Board of Revenue vide Annexure P-8 dated 08.01.2016 has directed the Tehsildar to demarcate the land bearing Khasra No. 297 which belongs to the petitioner and other lands bearing Khasra Nos.311/1 and 311/2 and Khasra No.312, which belonged to the respondent be carried out. It was further directed that during such demarcation the permanent boundary mark (Chanda) should be traced out and if necessary, the place may be dug up and thereafter following the procedure to relocate the Chanda (traverse stations)/boundary mark may be placed and thereafter the demarcation be carried out. In compliance to such direction, the boundary mark/Chanda munara were traced on field as shown in revenue map and having not found on the ground the Chanda was reestablished on the basis of field boundaries of various agricultural field and demarcation was carried out. The petitioner objected to it before the Board of Revenue that since physically the Chanda was not existing, therefore, the demarcation and placement of new Chanda was not done according to the guidelines of Bhu Abhilekh Niyamawali which is pari materia to the land record manual which prescribes the procedure to establish the mising Chanda munara by following certain procedure. The said objection having been dismissed by Board of Revenue, the instant petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the demarcation which was carried out on 28.03.2017 the placement and establishment of Chanda was on the wrong procedure as the missing Chanda which was in the revenue map was shown to be situated in Khasra No.319 and 444. It is stated that those were established by admeasuring the boundary of the field but actually it should have been vice versa. He would further submit that the boundary of the field keeps on changing, therefore, in any case, to establish a traverse station (Chanda) the boundary/ (med) of field cannot be the benchmark. He would further subm that the Bhu Abhilekh Niyamawali i.e. the Land Record Manual there are specific instructions are laid down to re-establish a missing Chanda-Munara and as per Chapter V Rule 4 of the Land Records Manual to establish one missing Chanda-Munara, two other existing Chanda-Munara on the ground has to be found out and from that the angle and the perpendicular line has to be carried out so as to find out the missing Chanda according to the revenue map and thereafter the missing Chanda-Munara is to be re-established. It is stated that in this case the Panchnama would reveal that the way adopting the procedure Chanda-Munara as was re-established the boundary map of Khasra Nos. 318, 319, 321 and Khasra No.319, 321 and 322 were considered for measurement and trisections were made. It is stated such procedure are completely wrong as it would shift the position of a original land itself. It is further submitted that in case the entire sub traverse stations are missing, it is to be find out through geographical traverse station by theodolite survey method.