IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No.'^'^G A2&3-8- ^_Q\) PETITIQNER pfplNTtl-^ L. Taushib @ Majjan aged about 51 years S/o- Md. Shiddiqui R/o- Purana Bus Stand, Post Tahsil and District - Korba Versus V-' ^MISs^. "'<^ Respondents ^)£|=?^J)€A)T 4V/ ^/A. ^/^ ^w/y k/'^ ^..-' ^,? ^ ~\ 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Korba. 2. Smt. Subhadra Sao widow of Late Timan lal 3. Smt. Reema Sahu D/o- LateTiman lal, W/o- Naresh kumar Sahu R/o- Q.No. 29 Near Shiv Mandir.Vikash Nagar Kusmunda, Post-Kusmunda District- Korba. 4. Ku. Leena Sao D/o- Late Timan Sao 5. Virendra Kumar Sao, S/o- Late Timan lal [ R/o- 2,4 & 5 -- Purana Basti'Korba, Post, Tahsil 8s District- Korba ( C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Particular of the Petitioner :- As mentioned above in the cause title. 2. 3. Particulars of the respondents :- As mentioned in the cause title. Particulars of the order against which the petition is "•^L'WtSSS5^?^: ^.^-•^^^'J^^ ^^SSS;^"-^!. j tS&^'^fi B HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No. 746/201 1 PETITIONER : Md. Taushib @ Majjan. Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & others. Appearance: Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petitioners. Shri R.R. Sinha, Panel Lawyerforthe State. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (08.02.2011) Heard. (2) Both theCourts below have rejected petitioner's/plaintiffs prayer for grant of temporary injunction. (3) Admittedly, the defendants have obtained a decree for delivery of possession of land bearing Khasra No. 997/2 against the pfaintiff and the said decree, having been confirmed in Second Appeai has been put to execution. (3) The present suit has been filed by the petitioner seeking declaration of his ownership on plot No.996/2 on the strength of !ease granted by the Competent Authority. According to the petitioner though he is in possession of land bearing Khasra No.996/2, the defendants may evict him from his possession while executing decree relating to, Plot No. 997/2. (4) Both the Courts below have found that there is no prima 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 <^7 —•3^- any irreparable loss if the above decree concerning Plot No. 997/2 is executed. (5) In the opinion of this Court, both the Courts below have examined the matSer and have concurrently found that ail 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. If the present plaintifTs claims to be in possession of Plot No.996/2, 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.996/2 or that there is dispute about demarcation or the identity of land. (6) In 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 finding 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 dtate 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. ^'^^^s ¥ta^nl^e •k- 1