N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmseARH AT BILAsPUR wgw PETmON 1227) N0. Siku OF 200§ “ME WW“ WRIT PETIT!ON UIA Q27 OF CONSTITUTION OE INDIA PETITIONER £W7’QM I ( : fa/khamal Slo Late Radhakrishna Gupta, aged (A; \ Q about 58 years, ~ Occupation- A Government Servant, Rio éék‘éVw $° ;" Q Madhubanpara Raigarh, w‘w Tahsil & Distt‘ Raigarh, (C.G.) VERSUS REsPONDENT Ccmmissioner Municipai Gorporation Raigarh, Tahsil 8c Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ML. ,. ‘ ' Lakha’nlal Vetsu ' ' Commissioner Municipal Crporon, Raigarh Shri Sunii Sahu, counsei for the petitioner. wan PETmoN UNDER ”1mg g2? OF THE cggsmgiou OF mom v . V\ . iH L / _ by the first appeilate Court. The appeiiate Court has also Tobserved that though the plaintiff has purchased 14m soft. of land by HIGH COURT OF CHliATTlSGARH AT BILASPuR $ingie Bench: Honbie Shg gustice Prasmnt Km Mishra writ Petition 12271 No,s141 mos gETmONER RESPogDENT oati 03$ ORDE maximum) Heard. (2) Both the Coutts beiaw have dismi$ed the petitionerlpiaintiff’s appiication under Order 39 Rule i & 2 of CPI). for grant of temrmrary iniunction. r3) The mar Cami in its order dated rim—2007 has recorded the finding that the piaintiff ciaims to purchase the subject land admeasuring 350 sq. ft. by an oral transaction. The Municipai Corporation is raising construction of drain tor the members of the iocaiity in pubiic interest. it has aiso been found that the subiect lent! where the drain is being constrticted is Government land, which has been emroached by the petitioner. The trial Court iiiije‘ round that there is no prime facie case or balance of convenience in piaintiff’s favour and that he is not likely to suffer any irreparabie loss it injunetion 2 i is not allowed . iH P4 ‘ L / (4) The timings reiateo by the tr’'iai'ciauri has been arrmned in i R3 ,. registered sale-deed but is in posgession of 1750 sq. ft. of land and ciaims that the additional area has been oraliy purchased. it is this additional area admeasuring 5x70 sq. ft. on 'which the drain is constructed which was under encroachment by the piaintiff. (5) There is no perversity in the order passed by the Courts betow. The principies for consideration of a prayer for grant of temporary injunction has been considered in accordance with iaw, therefore this Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia is not entitled to interfere with the said exercise of dimetionary iurisdiction by the Courts below. {6) The instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed, however it is directed that the suit pending since November, 2006 be disposed of as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/n Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge