iNTHBHIGHC^URTOFCHHA'mSQARHATBIIASPCR _^^M^77^ ^; ::":.. ^:'::'".':: W.P^®N0. OF 2008 " Ram.swaroop Sahu, S/o Manohar Sahu, • Aged 49 years, "° i Occupatkin-Agriculturist R/o ViIlage-Aainapendn, ' P.S. Patan, TahsU-Patan, mstt. Dui^(CG) PETITIONER PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT ^^- ^<. ,^'^'c^1 ^v^v"yf' RESPONDENTS ^€ ^^^ i VERSUS 1. 2. Smt. CImitiYadav, W/o ManharaaYadav, •:'^^ •^, SarpancU, Gram: Pan.chayat- i -Sayani i TahsU-Patan, Distt. Durg (CG) ' ' • - ' ;'...,%] Distnct GoUector, . . ••\^M!: ©HFg,•. .:Qffice..;': yQS'tyBx^cseffi: .:(3olleGtor,^]3iuig^g^£; •ff. .^' il 1 !| l'%il..-8s^ 1 vi<d E:ezsss ^l; Jfi- fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mfehra PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition<227) No. 4116/2008 : Ramswaroop Sahu Versus Smt. Chaiti Yadav and another Aopearance: Smt. Fouzia Mirza, counsel for the petitioner. Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. None for respondent No.l though served. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTnUTIQN OF WVIA ORAL ORDER (17.02.2011) ^ • Both the courts below have rejected petitioner's prayer for grant oftemporary mjunction. (2) Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that he is owner in possession of land bearing khasra No.419/'2 area 0.40 hectare and khasra No. 422/2 area 0.21 hectare sitiiated at Village Aamapendri, Tahsil Patan, District Durg. (3) According to the petitioner/plaintifF he has not encroached any piece of govemment land, however, on allegation that petitioner has encroached government grass land bearing khasra No. 420 area 2.21 hectare, the defeiidants are trying to remove his possession on the land of his ownership. (4) In the written statement filed by the defendant No. 1 (Annexiire -^ . . • • .^ • .' • : P-2) it was stated that the petitioner has encroached land ibearing z it1 Si 1 1ffl Mi (y^ khasra No.420 on an area admeasuring 0.90 hectare by erecting wired fence and therefore plaintiff is notentrtled to protect his possessioa beingan encroacher on govemment land. (5) Both courts below have found that the plaintiff does not have any prima facie case, balance ofconvenience or irreparable loss in his favour. (6) Having perused the documents annexed wifh tfae writ petition this court is not able to take a different view, however at the same time it is also to be seen that ifthe plaintifF wants to protect his possession on land bearing khasra No.419/2 area 0.40 hectare and khasraNo. 422/2 areaO.21 hectareas he is bhoomiswami ofthe said lands he is entitled to protect his possession. (7) Therefore, while dismissmg this petition with respect to injunction regarding goverament grass land, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from khasra No.419/2, area 0.04 hectare, khasra No.422/2 area 0.21 hectare total area 0.61 hectare situated at Village Aamapendri. However, the respondents/defendants shall be free to remove encroachment on any govemment land. (8) The trial court is also directed to do well to dispose ofthe suit as early as possible and preferably within a period ofsix months fi-om the date ofpresentafion ofcertified copy ofthis order. (9) The writ petition is disposed ofwith above observation. Sd/- PrashantKumarMishra Judge .atsSff