SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arvind Kumar Verma, J
Tikaram Son Of Jahan Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPC No. 3849 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla
For the Respondents: Mr. R. S. Marhas

All parties affected by land demarcation must be given prior notice and a fair opportunity to be heard before administrative decisions are made.

Headnote:(A) Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code - Sections 114, 115, 116 - Land demarcation dispute - The petitioner sought to set aside an order dismissing their revision petition against an earlier demarcation decision made without proper hearing - The court directed that a fresh demarcation be carried out with all parties present to ensure fairness and due process. (Para 6)

(B) Principles of fair hearing - Fundamental right to be heard - The court emphasized that all concerned parties must have the opportunity to present their case before any decision affecting their interests is made. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested an order correcting land records without notifying all affected parties, leading to an administrative appeal and subsequent orders setting aside these measures due to procedural defects.

Findings of Court:
The initial demarcation was conducted in the absence of several affected parties, necessitating a remand for a fresh process to ensure fairness.

Issues: The critical issue was the legality of the demarcation conducted without the presence of all concerned parties and the implications for due process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that decisions affecting rights must involve all affected parties, reinforcing the principle of natural justice and fair hearing.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions for a fresh demarcation.

Table of Content
1. intricacies of land records and appeals stemming from procedural errors. (Para 2)
2. stance of the state on the legitimacy of the order passed. (Para 3 , 4)
3. need for all parties to be present for demarcation. (Para 5)
4. direction for fresh demarcation ensuring all stakeholders are heard. (Para 6)
5. final decision to dispose of the petition. (Para 7)

Order on Board

24/07/2025

1. By way of the present petition the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities.

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated

05.05.2025 (Annexure P/1)

10.3 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case including cost of litigation.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application under Section 114 , 115, 116 before respondent no. 5 stating that the land bearing khasra no. 267/4 & 267/5 admeasuring area 0.470 hectare and 0.242 hectare respectively situated at Village- Paraswani, P.H. No. 78, R.I.C. Magarlod, Up-Tahsil Magarload, District- Dhamtari were recorded in the name of petitioner’s father. As a result of which respondent no. 5 registered the case bearing no. 161/A-6-A/2008-09 and issued notice to the affected persons. Respondent no. 5 called the resport from the revenue authority and conducted spot inspection. Vide order dated 19.05.2009 the respondent no. 5 has corrected the records in respect of area of subject lands. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no. 6 to 9 filed an appeal before respondent no. 4. vide order dated 25.05.2011 the said appeal was dismissed. Respondent no. 6 to 9 again filed a second appeal before respondent no. 3 and vide order dated

15.03.2018 the respondent no. 3 has allowed the appeal and set-aside the order dated 25.05.2011 by holding that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent no. 6 to 9 and in their absence the spot inspection was done. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2018 the petitioner preferred a revision before respondent no. 2 along with application for grant of interim relief which was dismissed vide order dated 05.05.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

5. It is crystal clear from perusal of impugned order dated 05.05.2025 that demarcation was done in absence of respondent no. 6 to 9 therefore the matter was remanded back to the respondent no. 5.

6. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsels, it is directed that demarcation shall be done in presence of all affected and concerned parties and thereafter respondent no. 5 shall pass a fresh order after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to all the affected and concerned parties.

7. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top