Mohar Lal vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 486 Chatt

                                                    1


                                                                                              NAFR

                       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                              WPC No. 278 of 2023

             Mohar Lal S/o Late Kishnu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Ajabnagar, Post
             Silphili, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil Latori, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                     ---- Petitioner
                                                 Versus
          1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Surajpur, District : Surajpur,
             Chhattisgarh
          2. Commissioner, Surguja Division, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
          3. Tahsildar, Latori, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
          4. Patwari, Village Ajabnagar, Tahsil Latori, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
          5. Revenue Inspector, Village Ajabnagar, Tahsil Latori, District : Surajpur,
             Chhattisgarh
                                                                                 ---- Respondents

     For petitioner                       :       Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate
     For State                            :       Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, PL



                                Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                         Order on Board

24/01/2023

1. The limited relief that petitioner has sought for in the present writ petition is for a

direction to the respondent authorities for concluding the demarcation

proceedings initiated by the petitioner at the earliest.

2. According to the petitioner, he has already a decree in his favour from the

competent Civil Court. Further that there is no stay order operating against the

said judgment and decree. He further submits that even the Revenue Officers

i.e. Tahsildar and Commissioner have ordered for demarcation of the property

but till date the proceedings have not been concluded.

3. State counsel at the outset submits that it appears that there is no appeal

against the judgment and decree that though there does not reflect to be any

interim order in operation, nonetheless the directions given by the Authorities

for demarcation proceedings shall be concluded at the earliest.

4. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, subject to verification of fact as

to whether there is any interim order operating against the judgment and decree

passed in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No.3 & 4 are directed to

ensure that demarcation proceedings are concluded in accordance with law

within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. With the aforesaid observations, this present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit