> '%. ....^ .*,**f'*...^, ^•"^s^y....- S^0^-"""'" AaYe t*** 1 ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH C;,» & BB[ SECOND APPEAL N0. OF 2006 APPELLANT PLAINTIFF Badri Prasad Mishra, Aged about 43 years, S/o Shri Shankarlal Mishra, R/o Kota, District Raipur (CG) Versus Qt RESPONDENTS J^EFENDANTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (CG) 2. Additional Tahsildar / Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Building and Roads Division No. 1, Raipur (CG) 3. Nazul Officer, Tahsil & Distt- Raipur (CG) Ib,- SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. XI-HC-22 T^ •^nwi, wsww, hvfwy ^ 311^1 ^iT 1?;ri?73n^T Eftlticb ^f^rf ^..•.;' %. + ^.A7 ?4-. M 20°^> Shri HS Patei, counse Shri J& Bajpai, (Sover The appellant filed injunction on the ground ti- area 30 X 22 5q Ft has beer on-temporary Isase up to renewal before expi"y of passing any order on his dp^ interfered with hispossessi appellant and pleaded that n the !ease period has been fi was 9ronted on the conditio^ by the Soverninent, or the appeijant, the lease shal wiilfully disobeyed the con' renewai. The. land is requi| qinttl'fll lllfff'fffStZt <[a|(dl< ^siPgiian^i iment Advocate for resoondents. |J M.((;.5P.No.l4/2005. a suit fos* declaration and permanent at tha sult hnd bearing Khasra No.218, granted to him by the Revenue Authority pl.03.1993. He filed 'an application for t-he lease period, despite that, without ication on 18.02.1997; Reyenue Author-ity >n. Respondents denied the claim of the applicat.ion for renewal before expir'y of ed by the appellant. The temporary Isase that whenever the Sand wi!i be reauired lition of the lease will be violated by itions of the iease and has no rjght of ed by the ffovernrnent for wideninij the ni( [^^firt 1 XI-HC-22 "TE? -^wwf, wS\ww, hwwy. n>-V ^.............o4-... •^t 200^ sn^T^r h-tt* an^l WqWHffi?T =^2. the Courts bel It has been he jsmisse iGDDlicatio i.e.31.0: IJenino the relief sought by 1+ie for renewal has been filed before expiry of lease perjo(J i.e.31.03.1993. The !and was ig the highway. After expiry of the period of iease, the posses^ion of .the appetlant was of encroacher,' therefore, he was possession in the years 1997. It violated the condition of lease b'ii tion. Fr aoDellant was allotted the suit land 17.06.1993, he.was served with a n< made bv him from the suit land. It| thdt in February 1997, the appellant The appeliant has proposed tij of !aw in his memo of appea!;- 1) Whether the learnei a finding that the.pendency 4 lease the tengnt has no right ^ '+wfci'lil-f 'qrtcff'? ftist tf3R?re s ^T sTpg'T an^r ilso been held that the oippelhnt installinq suser structure and ilaint itself, it is clear that the ipQrirify up to 31.03.1993. On rtice to remoys the construction is estabtished from the. evidence <vas removed from tha suit land. e foilowing substantial questions Cfturt urt beiow Justified by giving f the renewa! application of [Tft^ ^K^ ^ XI-HC-22 sii^i ^n R;-)i<t) 311^1 5bH <lfi^l Ot. DQdma ^ y ^af ••<ill41ci<<, yfll'H'is, ftciiyy ; an^r Tra^? 11MI Sh*1|ch M 200^ IN^sr' •TL sifef ^aiwdfet 2) Whei+ier the learned not considerin9 the positic ovar the rion The Court below, by appr un-authorised. Therefore, evidenceand finding of the Coupt: substwitial question of law involve 1s acc'ordingly dismissed._ rt.(C.)P.No,14/2006 &IA N ^I^^IT-.HI^^ ^ f^<^ •tT'i-^ ^ 3i1^fiT aii^r bo1+i the Courts below erred in Saintiff / aopel e 1983 ? filed before expiry of tiie beriod, Dossession over the suit tkina into consideration the beiow, I am of the opinion ^ in the prssent <^)peal. Therefo liant is deser-ves to be disiniss 34/2 and Sd/- V.K-Shrivastava Judge [•^^fi34 ^