Shivshankar Pathak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI

¶4

2026:CGHC:22485

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 2436 of 2026

¶7

1 - Shivshankar Pathak S/o Lt. Shri Rameshwar Prasad Pathak Aged About 76 Years R/o Ganj Para, Bans Taal, Behind Deshbandhu, Station Road, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department 1-13, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Collector District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Tahsildar Berla District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Shivdayal Pathak S/o Rameshwar Pathak Aged About 80 Years R/o Village Khamahariya, Tehsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

(Cause Title is taken from CIS System)

¶16

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate
For State	:	Mr. S. S. Choubey, Government Advocate

¶17

2

¶18

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

13/05/2026

¶21

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

¶22

“10.1 Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to quash and set aside the impugned demarcation report dated 13.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) and the related proceedings of Case No. 202604231200002/A/12 Year 2025-26; and/or

¶23

10.2 Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondent No. 3 (Tehsildar) to act in accordance with law and only proceed after deciding the pending objections within a stipulated time frame; and/or.

¶24

10.3 Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

¶25

Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition contending that he is in lawful possession and

¶26

3

¶27

occupation of the subject land bearing Kh. No. 595/3 situated at Village Khamariya (M), Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.). The petitioner submits that he is directly affected by the demarcation proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities. It is averred that earlier demarcation proceedings were conducted after due notice to all concerned parties and a demarcation report dated 01.07.2024 was prepared in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, on an application moved by one Shiv Dayal Pathak, the Revenue Inspector issued notice dated 28.05.2025 for fresh demarcation proceedings. The petitioner immediately submitted objections and representations dated 30.05.2025, 06.06.2025 and 17.06.2025 before the competent authorities pointing out various irregularities and illegality in the proposed proceedings. The petitioner further submits that despite pendency of objections and revision proceedings under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code before the Collector, the respondent authorities proceeded with demarcation by issuing repeated notices and constituting demarcation teams. It is also alleged that notices were issued through paper publication and affixture instead of proper personal service. The record further reflects that W.P. No. 4516/2025 preferred by Shiv Dayal Pathak was disposed of directing the authorities to decide the applications expeditiously and thereafter, in Review Petition No. 46/2026, this Court modified the earlier order and directed that the

¶28

4

¶29

objections raised by the present petitioner be considered before proceeding further in the matter. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid directions, the Tahsildar proceeded with the demarcation proceedings in haste, without granting effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and ultimately passed the impugned demarcation report dated 13.04.2026. It is further contended that multiple demarcation cases in respect of the same land have been initiated causing serious prejudice and multiplicity of litigation.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire demarcation proceedings have been conducted in gross violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the directions issued earlier by this Court in Review Petition No. 46/2026. It is argued that though several objections and representations were filed by the petitioner before the Tahsildar and Collector, the same were never adjudicated in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submits that without granting effective opportunity of hearing and without properly considering the pending revision application and objections, the respondent authorities hurriedly conducted demarcation proceedings and passed the impugned report dated 13.04.2026. Learned counsel submits that demarcation proceedings have serious civil consequences and therefore compliance of principles of natural justice, particularly grant of

¶31

5

¶32

hearing to affected parties, is mandatory. It is further argued that opening multiple demarcation proceedings for the same subject land demonstrates arbitrariness and abuse of process on the part of the authorities. He, therefore, prays that the impugned demarcation proceedings be interfered with and appropriate direction be issued to the competent authority for reconsideration of the matter in accordance with law.

¶33

Learned State counsel submits that the demarcation proceedings were undertaken by the competent revenue authorities in accordance with law and pursuant to the directions issued earlier by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy available under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and therefore may be relegated to avail such remedy before the competent authority. It is further submitted that if the petitioner approaches the competent authority by filing an appropriate application challenging the demarcation proceedings, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶34

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the principal grievance of the petitioner pertains to the alleged violation of

¶35

6

¶36

principles of natural justice in the course of demarcation proceedings conducted by the respondent authorities.

¶37

From the pleadings and documents placed on record, it appears that the petitioner had repeatedly submitted objections and representations before the competent authorities raising various issues with regard to pendency of revision proceedings, multiplicity of demarcation cases, procedural irregularities and absence of proper opportunity of hearing. It also appears that the petitioner has specifically contended that the impugned demarcation proceedings culminated without due adjudication of his objections.

¶38

This Court is of the considered opinion that grant of adequate opportunity of hearing to affected parties is an integral part of demarcation proceedings, particularly when such proceedings entail civil consequences affecting possession and boundary disputes. The principles of natural justice are required to be adhered to by the revenue authorities while undertaking demarcation proceedings under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.

¶39

At this stage, without entering into the merits of the rival claims and considering availability of statutory remedy before the

¶40

7

¶41

competent authority, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the petitioner to approach the concerned Collector by filing an appropriate application challenging the impugned demarcation proceedings/report.

¶42

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file an appropriate application before the concerned Collector within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the event such application is filed within the aforesaid period, the concerned Collector shall consider and decide the same within a further period of 30 days, strictly in accordance with law.

¶43

While considering the matter, the Collector shall specifically take into consideration the contention of the petitioner that no adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded to him, which forms an integral part of demarcation proceedings. The Collector shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

¶44

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶47

Shayna

Shivshankar Pathak v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivshankar Pathak v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narsingh Reddy Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkumar Paikra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sesh Narayan Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rahul Meena Vs Reserve Bank of India

Vikash Kumar Raj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Vs Girwar Lal