% HIGH COIJRT ay CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUH W.P. l22Tj No. 3469/2011 Smt. Shashi Dubey, W/o Prakash Dubey, aged about 52 years, R/o Neai' Laxmi Narayan. TeBiple, Behiad Irdgatiou Departoient, Shyaoi Nagar, Polsai Para, Durg, TahsU & District Durg (C.G.). PBTITIONBR DEFENDANT RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS RBSPONDBNT DEFBNDANT VERSUS 1. 2. Ashok Prasad Siiiha, S/o Raiaeshwar Prasad Sinha, aged about 54 years, R/o Plot No. A-183, Storeet No. 31, Smriti Nagar Junwaai, Bhilai, Talisil & District Durg (C.G.). The State of Chhattisgarh, Through The CoUector, Durg Tahsi & District Durg (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THB CONSTITUTION QF iNmA. (SB :Hoa»bleMr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri S. C. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri B.P. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Vinod KumarTekam, P.L, for the State/respondent No. 2. ORAL-ORDER (Passedoa 04/08/2011) 1, By tliis petition under Article 227 offhe Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legality aad propriety oftJie order dated 22/3/2011 passed by 9th Additional tDistrict Judge (F.T.C.), Durg m Misc, CivU Appeal No. 14/2010 dismissiag fhe appeal agaiast grant of injunction passed by 8th Civil Judge Class-II, Durg in civil suit No. 27-A/2010 vide order dated 26/4/2010. 2. Shri S. C. Venna, Advocate for tlie petitioner, Shri B.P. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Vinod KuEaar Tekam, P.L. for fhe State/respondent No. 2 are heard. 3. Order impugned, copy of plaiat, copy of petition, copy of appUcation ffled under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of Code of CivH Procedure, 1908 and copy ofreply penised, 8. Learaed counsel for the petitioner siibxnits tiiat petitioner has piirchased plot beailag Khasra No, 150/14 aad as per case of respondent No, 1, respondent No, 1 has purchased plot ia part of Khasra No. 150/6. Leamed counsel for tiie petitioner furfher submits fliat present petitioner was not encroachiag or occupyiag or constructitig the road situated on Khasra No. 150/6 aad Court below has passed illegal order restraming fhe petitioner froiii constructiag fhe laiid. Leamed counsel for the petitioner also subniits fhat he has filed application for deinarcation before the trial Court. On the other haiid, Sliri B.P. Shanna, learaed counsel for fhe respondent No. 1 & Shri Viaod Kumar Tekaoi, learaed P.L. for tlie State/respoudent No. 2 opposed tlie petition. Order impugned appears that there may be bouiidary dispute of Khasra Nos. 150/6 & 150/14 aiid may be adjoining laad. In tliese circumstaaces witliout ascertain actual location, construction over tlie laad niay aifect fhe right aad liabillty not only respondent No, 1 but also to petitioner. In tliese circuinstances, petition is disposed ofwith fhe foUowitig observation that Coiirt below shaU direct for deiaarcatiou of laad on the basis of appUcation filed on behatf of fhe petitioner aiid authority to whom such direction made shall demarcate tlie laad after sumiaoning bofh fhe parties and fheii' presence aad submitted its report as early as possible preferably wifhiti 2 monfhs froin today fhereafter Court below shall consider aiid is at Uberty to pass suitable order/ niodi&cation in fhe order ia terms of Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^