• c t. f! %^ Stttl HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI^SARH: BILASPUR WritPetiUon102of2000 Petitionere ResDondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. Ram Kumar Mishra, aged about 63 years, S/o. Late Ram Jiwan Mtehra, occupation cultivation; R/o. viliage Uria, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhattigarh). Smt. Sunder Bai, aged about 53 years. Snrt. Kamla Bai, aged about 48 ^are. Smt. Kala Bai, aged about 45 years. Smt. Saraju Bai, aged about 40 years, Number 2,3,4 and 5 all dai^htere of late Banshilal, occupatlon cultivatton; AH residents of village Urla; Tahal • Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhatti£^rh). Versus The State of ChhatUsgarh throi^h the Collector, Raipur (ChhatBsgarti). Chief Executive Offieer, Panchayat, Abhanpur, Tahsil Abhanpur, Di^rict Raipur (ChhatBsgarh). Gram ftanchayat Uria, Tahsit Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhatti^arh). ^y^xt:-'^ (Writ Petition under Art'cle 226/227 ofConstitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. Satyendra Sahu and Mr. C.R. Sahu, CQunsel for the petitioners. Mr. Bhaskar Payasi, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.l/State. Mr. P.P.Sahu, counsel forthe nespomlente No. 2 and 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 8iis S day of Janaary, 2008) By this petitton, the petitioners have pefenred ttiis petiUon seeUng a direction to quash the order dated 24-6-2000 (Anneiairs -F), whereby the Chtef Executive OfRcer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur, has grantect permission to Gram Panchayat, Urla, to organize the bazaar on ttie iand bearing Khasra Nos. 754 and 755/2. Further, the petiBoners have sou^rt for a direction restraining the respondents from interfertng with the possession of the petifcners on the said land. tt&ih^..fA^ .Afri .hHW*hni^ / <•.'•'•• -^" 2) Before filing of this petition, the petitioners have flled a suit being Ch/it Suit No.60-A/80 in the Court of Ist Civit Judge, Class II, Raipur, for rsctification of the surrender deed, declaration, partition and separate possession. The learned Civil Judgs, Raipur, byjudgment and decree dated 2-9-1992 (Annexure R-1(1) dismissed the suit holding thatttia petitioners have faited to prove the surrender deed in their favour and as such they were not entitled to partition and separate possession of the land in dispute i.e., land bearing Khasra No.774 & 775 area 13.28 acres, wherein, according to the petitioners, one acre was provided to the respondents. 3) There-against, an appeal baing Civil Appsat No.35-A/92 was preferred before ttie IV Additional Disfrict Judge, Ralpur, and the same was aiso dismissed bythe judgment and decreectated2-4-1993(Annexure R-1 (2). 4) The petitioners are seeking the identical relief in this present petitton and as such the pettUon is not malntainabte as tte issue involved in this peb'tion as well as in Civil Suit No.60-A/80 & in Civit Appeal No.35-A/82 is one and ttie same. The issue has been considered by a eompetent civi! court, thereafter the appeal was considered and decided by the AddMonsd Dlsfrict Judge, which resulted into dismissal of the ctaim of the petitioners. 5) Having regard to the above stated tacts, this peUtion is dianissed as not maintainabte. However, on the requast of leamed counset for the petitioners, liberty is reserved to the peUtioners to take recourse te any forum which may be available to them under the provisions <rf !aw. No order as to costs. 6) interim order passed on 19-3-2001 shall stand dlschaiged: Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Raju