Li ATTISGARH‘ AT BILASPUR IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHH WRIT PETITION (227) Naél3 /201q PETITIONERS /1 Mushir Ahmad aged about 50 years, S/o— ”kW/W Md. Sharif Ahmad, /’2. Smt Afroj Bano aged about 45 years, W/o Mushir Ahmad, Both R/o- Purana Bus Stand, Post Tahsil and s District - Korba / Versus Resgondents / 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Korba. /~2. Smt. Subhadra Sao widow of Late Timan lal 3. Smt. Reema Sahu D/o— LateTiman 1a1, W/o- Naresh kumar Sahu R/o— Q.No. 29 Near Shiv Mandir,Vikash Nagar Kusmunda, Post—Kusmunda District— Korba. Ku. Leena Sac D/o- Late Timan Sao ,5. Virendra Kumar Sao, S/o— Late Timan 1a1 [R/o— 2,4 8t 5 ~- Purana Basti Korba, Post, Tahsil & District— Korba ( C.G.) C82 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Han’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mlshra Writ Petition (227) No. 629 12011 Appearance: Shri Parag Kotecha, counsei for the petitioners Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State: WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (1 1 .02.201 1) Heard. (2) Both the Courts heiow have rejected petitioners/plaintiffs prayer for grant of temporary injunction. (3) Admittediy, the defendan$ have obtained a decree for delivery of possession of land bearing Plot No./Khasra No. 997/2 against the plaintiff and the said decree. having been conhrmed in Second Appeal has been put to execution. (3) The present suit has been tiled by the petitioner seeking declaration of his ownership on plot No./ Khasra No. 995/1 & 996/3 on the strength of lease granted by the Competent Authority. According to the petitioner though he is in possession of land bearing plot No./ Khasra No. 995/1 & 996/3, the defendants may evict him from his possession while executing decree relating to Plot NoJKhasra No. 997/2. (4) Both the Courts below have found that there is no pn'ma facie case in favour of plaintiffs nor there is balance of convenience in his favour. it (has also been mentioned that the plaintiff is not likely to suffer any PETITIONER : Mushir Ahmad and another. Versus RESPONDENTS : The State of Chhattisgarh 8. others. G3 irreparable loss if the above decree concerning Plot No./Khasra No. 997/2 is executed. (5) In the opinion of this Court, both the Courts below have examined the matter and have concurrently found that all the three pillars of grant of temporary injunction are not existing in favour of petitioner. Even otherwise decree obtained by the defendants is for Plot No. 997/2 and land covered in the said plot number alone shall be delivered to the decree holder. lf the present plaintiffs‘ claims to be in possession of plot $ No.l Khasra No. 995/1 & 996/3, they can maintain their possession on the said plot. Moreover. in the present suit no relief has been claimed that the decree obtained by the defendants are not concerning plot No./ Khasra No. 995/1 & 996/3 or that there is dispute about demarcation or the identity of land. (6) ln the opinion of this Court. no interference in exercise of. power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for in view of the concurrent tinding recorded by the Courts below. However. in the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that the trial Court shall do well to dispose of the suit as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Parties to the suit shall co-operate with the trial Court for early disposal. (7) The writ petition is dismissed with above observation. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge l¢