PLAINTIFFS -*>, <eS 17 : 1. Jagmohan S/o Firangi; aged about60 years; 'Lodhi' 2. Moradhwaj S/o Firangi; aged about 57 years; 'Lodhi' - 3. Ram Narayan S/o Bharat; aged about 50 vears; 'Nayee'; ; 4. Shatroghan S/o Thukel; aged about 60 years; 'Lodhi'; 5. RevaRam S/o Sumeri; aged bout65 years; 'Lddhi'; : . 6. Indal S/o Thukel aged about 60 years; 'Lodhi'; 7. Sadva S/o Tatu aged about 55 years; 'Kewat' & 8. Aarva S/o Bharo; aged ahout 55 years; "Sahu' . : All T/O Viilage Paaragaon Kala; P.H. No.. 13 R.I. CircSe & Tahsil Dongargarh; Dist. Rajnandgaon [G.G.' VERSUS : 1) State of C.G. through Collector, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 2) Executive Engineer; Water Resources Division Rajnandgaon; Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG.) ' . • • . •• :- WRIT PETITIONUNDERARTICLE227.0FTHE€CWSTITUT!ON,C)F INDIA. Sinele Bench: Hon'bleJusticeShriSatishK. Agnihotri Present:- Mr.R.N.Jha, Advocate fbr the petitioner. . Miss Deepali Pandey, Panel Lawyer &r the State / respondents., (Passed on 25U1 day ofApril, 2007) ; ..,:' • : This petitibn under Article 227 of the Constrtution of India,^ questrons the'orderdated 15.01^007 (AnnexyreP/1) wtierem|ffie| District Judge,. Rajnandgaori has .confirmed. ffae iihdmg.aii<i|Igl||; ;passed:by^tfae'Givil.Judge,:QassI/:DQngargarh.,.^'';.;;,y:.^ f'- tS 2. The petitioner iiled a suit fpr declaratiQn aiid permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Dongargarh, wherein, the notification issued by.the Central Govemment for acquiring the land was questioned. The petitioner further filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 aad 2 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure, seekinj iaterim injunction again.st the Govemment till tUe disposal of the suit. The Civil Judge, Class I, Dongargarh by his order dated 12.09.2006 (Annexure P/12)dismissed theapplication on'theground that the application was an after thought and balance of convenience was notin favour ofthepetitioner. , 3. In Miscellaneous Civil Appeal, the District Judge, RajnandgaQn, . after having considered all the aspects, passed the judgment and order dated 15.01.2007 came to theconclusion that after issue,,c)f; notification dated 26.11.2005, the constructioa of the canal'Kas^ already begun.The petitioner is at-tfae mosf entitled to compensatioH, for acquisition of the land. The constructioa cannot be stopped as huge amount has been invested. In view of that, the District Judge, Rajnandgaori, dismissed the' appeal hoiding that no case has. been made out for grant ofinterim relief. fbr the parties^ perused thereto. I find no infirmity, • dated 15.QI .2007 passed by I have heard the learaed oounsel app the pleadings and documents appended illegalitv' or procedural error in the order the District.Judge, Rainandgaon. It is well settled principle of law that under Article 227 of the Constitution.of Iridia, this Court has jurisdiction ofjudicial review of the orderpassed byfhe Courtbelow, inthe event, there is mariifestf and apparent error on Ifae face of the proceedings based on fhe cleax: igaorance or utter disregard to the provisions oflawQrthereis'graves failyre ,pf justice', or grave ityustice faas; Qccasi6ne8,g,S|j hereby. Furfher, tiiis Cpurt can alsQ entertaiff the:-petitio ^ji^| 6 :1 jurisdiction. if there is perversity, irregularity or iilegalily in the processofdecisiQn.notintiiedecisionitselt 6. Applying the above settled grinciples of law to the facts of the present case, it does not warrant an interference with the impugned order passed by the Court below. 7. Thus, this petitionis di.smissed. No orderas tocosts. 8. Consequently, I.A. No. 1 and I.A. No. 2, appTication for grant of interim reliefand application for urgent hearing respectiveiy, staads disposedo£ • • : Amit 1.3' Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge 'C^'SSSSM^^'.'. .1 ii^^^^^^K