‘ ‘ 7 §mE &EM§§“*3 GP‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIOMU/A 227) Naawx OF 2011 PETITIONER: Jila, Seva Sahakari PLAINTIFF Samiti, Maryadit, Branch— Dabhara, Janjgir-Champa, J 1 Through— Manager- Manaharan Lai, S/o- ShEi Chhatlal, Aged About— 46 years, Distt- Janjgir-Champa (C.G .) VERSUS. ESPONDENT(S): ’T; Devnarayan, Aged About-42 DEFENDANT No.1 Years, S/o- Shri Shivram, R/o- Village-Dabhara, Distt- Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) DEFENDANT No.2/2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Distt— Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) DEFENDANT No.3 3. Thasildar, Dabhara, Distt— / Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / h R Wm W fL2L2¢€im M/ I) 200 133 : Hon’ble Shri Manindta Mohan shrivastava, J.l 9.5.201 1 Shri Vinay Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.R.J. Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer for the State, oil advance copy. Heard on admission. e o This petition has be flled by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 19m April; 201 passed in CiVil Suit No.48 A [10 by which petitioner’s applicati under Section 151 of the C.P.C. for maintaining status quo the disputed property has been rejected. Learned counsel for which respondent No.1 belongs to the petitioner/p id‘ as the petitioner/plaintid had been in possession of prop since 1965—66 and it has perfected the title by adverse posse sion. He further submits that the learned Court below having recorded a :tinding that the disputed - land is a Govt. land, ought tb have passed an order of status quo and by rejecting petitioner’s pplication, learned Court below has He further submits that if the respondent No.1 is allowed ito raise construction, the petitioner would suffer irreparable injury petitioner argued that the land, on proposing to raise construction, l ' t e acted with gave perversi i. [m ’ e i XI—HC-z'z ‘ mm, mma‘ The order impugned shows that the petitioner’s application under Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected by the Court t below, recording that the petitioner itself has pleaded that the defendant No. 1 is in possessl‘lon of the land in dispute. The Court below has also recorded that the petitioner has not produced any evidence to sh w that the land was ever allotted to documentary the petitioner. Learned co sel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that any allo ent was made in favour of the petitioner. The submissions ade before the Oourt disclose that the petitioner is claming ttle by adverse possession. As the petitioner himself has pleaded that it is not in possession of the property, in the absence of any allotment made by the Govt. in favour of the petitioner/plaintin‘, the order passed by the Court below, rejecting petitioner’s pplication under Section 151 of the CPC, in the opinion of this i urt, does not suffer nom any error of or perversity r any error apparent on the face of jurisdiction the record so as to warrant ' terfeience by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdi ’on under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed t : F ; Manindra Mohan Shrivastava amen Judge