J xe? .r^- C^f< IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETmONtONO.^SS^ OF 2006 PETITIONER. PLANTIFF ^Shayam Lal Sahu, Aged About- 40 years, S/o-Shri Daduram Sahu, R/o- Thana & Thesil- Masturi, Distt.- Billaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT {S): DEFENDANT . r^-S^ (^l'.-; )y.. ^>- \....-"' •.w^^ ^ys' y. Motilal Satnami, Aged About- 72 years, S/o- Shri Bhukal Satnami, Occupation- Agriculture, R/0- Village- Kirari, Thseil- Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector- Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FeR-IGSWsNGE-Or AN ArmomiA -WH^tf^ WTUHE or MANDAMUS i CEmionAni ETC. GR DI WQN 1 QRBER-IN Tl IE LIKC NATVRE. 9.-. •^.lf r XI-HC-78 HltTdl gtffliqi TSf^fWJvPf, wS\ww, Rldltiy .^.^.^.k.^/Q.(p 3li^l Maq> (lcli^al<ty) 3l1^T?>rf^TRi traTSii^rgiiTN; /•-; ^tiwnfersn^r spcjndent petitic^ier 8.1.2007: Shri Vinay Pandey oounsel for The petitioner by way of this P-3 passed by the Additional Districj| Civil Appeal preferred by the respcjn injunction has been allowed and the| favour of the petitioner has been set-a^ji 2. Learned counsel for the the said property from its recorded o') then he was in possession thereof] temporary injunction was passed by same has been set aside by the patently illegal and liable to be quashejj the suit property should be protected. 3. I have heard counsel for the 4. The Court below consideringl restored to the respondent No.1 in c( officer and the respondent No.1 was| aside the order of temporary injunctic)n order impugned has been passed of jurisdiction vested in the Court committed by the pourt below. 5. Thus, the petition being withoi(t the same is hereby dismissed. arld qii<<rci<l1-i iii<iTft'te'<;l <Kiw< ^sri^Tsn^r \ t|ie petitioner. p^tition has impugned the order of annexure Judge, Bitaspur whereby Miscellaneous No.1 against grant of temporary order of temporary injunction passed in fide. submits that the petitioner purchased (vner Ledhwa in the year 1995 and ,since and considering this fact an order of |he trial Court in his favour, however, the inlpugned order of Annexure P-3 whioh is and the possession ofthe petitioner over pe|;itioner and perused the order impugned. the fact that the land in question was ()mpliance with the orders of the revenue in possesston.the Court below has set granted in favour of the petitioner. The ab^olutely ih accordance with law in exeroise as suoh there is no jurisdictional error tt substance is liable to be dismissed and Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.