Encroachment proceedings require fresh demarcation under Section 129 with notice and the affected party’s presence.

The petitioner purchased Khasara No. 589/1, measuring 0.11 acre, at Korba, through a registered sale deed dated 20 December 2022.

Her name was mutated in the revenue records, and she obtained land-diversion and building permissions before commencing construction of a commercial complex.

The Water Resources Department alleged that the construction encroached upon Government land and issued a notice/order dated 11 November 2024 directing removal of the construction.

The petitioner contended that the notice did not identify the alleged encroached portion and had been issued without proper demarcation.

During the proceedings, the Court directed demarcation of the disputed land.

The respondents subsequently produced a demarcation report stating that the construction stood over Khasara Nos. 630 and 631, allegedly belonging to the Department.

The petitioner objected that no effective demarcation had actually been conducted and that only service of notice had taken place.

Whether the notice/order dated 11 November 2024 directing removal of the alleged encroachment was legally sustainable when it did not clearly identify the encroached portion of land.

Whether the respondents were required to conduct a fresh and lawful demarcation under Section 129 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and the applicable Rules before taking coercive action against the petitioner.

The Court applied Section 129 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, along with the Rules framed thereunder, governing lawful demarcation of land boundaries.

The applicable principle is that where an encroachment dispute depends upon the precise identity and boundaries of the land, the authorities must undertake a proper demarcation after giving notice to the affected person, conducting the process in their presence, and supplying the resulting report.

Such procedure is necessary to ensure compliance with natural justice before consequential coercive action is taken.

The Court found that the original notice dated 11 November 2024 did not disclose the specific portion allegedly encroached upon and therefore did not sufficiently establish whether the construction stood on the petitioner’s land or on land belonging to the Water Resources Department.

Although the respondents relied on a subsequent demarcation report, the Panchnama showed that the petitioner had objected that no proper demarcation had been carried out.

Since the petitioner disputed the accuracy and manner of the demarcation, the Court held that a fresh demarcation in accordance with Section 129 and the applicable Rules was necessary.

The Court consequently refrained from finally determining the title or encroachment dispute and directed the statutory authorities to undertake a procedurally valid demarcation after notice and in the presence of the concerned parties.

The concerned SDO (Revenue) was directed to constitute a committee comprising one Tehsildar, two Revenue Inspectors, and two Patwaris.

The petitioner was to receive at least seven days’ prior notice, and the demarcation was to be conducted in her presence and after calling the neighbouring landowners.

The demarcation report was to be supplied to the petitioner, who could pursue the appropriate appellate remedy if dissatisfied.

The exercise was directed to be completed within 45 days, and the petitioner was directed to cooperate with the authorities.