IN THE HIGH COURT or JUDICATURE AT BILAs UR WRIT PETITION No. VHZE /2004 1. Mansukh, son of Shri Bisruram Sahu, aged about 44 years. Ravikant,‘ son of Shri Mansukh (F ‘£8“'/ 2. Sahu, aged about 22'years. 3. Puskarkaran, son ' of Shri Mansukh Sahu, aged about 18 years. , All residents of Gram Baihaar P-ost Arang, Tahsil & District Raipur. ,. l. Bisturam Sahu, son of Late Ganeshram Sahu, aged about 76 years, -Occupation . Farmer, resident of Gram Baihaar, .Post Arang, Tahsil and - District Raipur. ' 2. Iswar, sor'1 of Shri Bisru Ram Sahu, aged about 40 years, £w’ w PETITIONERS VS € resident of Gram-,Baih‘aar, Post ‘e\ 6’ 0 Arang, Tahsil ‘and District g; \Raipur (Formal) ., k State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Raipur. WRIT PETI l ION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITU‘TION OF INDIA e humble petltlon of the Petitioners above named — 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS: As above in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As above in the cause title. RESPONDENTS \ *‘ 8 r. ‘“7 ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH; BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1429 of 2004 Mansukh and othcrs - Versus - Bisruram Sahu and hers ot P05TFOR ORDER ONM 0712004 5d!- L.C.BHADO<) Judge '/ HIGH 00m OF CHEAT’I‘ISGARH B UR Writ Petition 30.1429 of 2004 Mansukh and othcm - Versus - Bismram Sahu and others Pmsent: - Mr. B.P. Shama, Advocate: For the petitioners Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate: For the State]mspondent No.3 Before: Hon’ble 3hr! Justice LC. Bhudon O R D E R (Passed onw July, 2004) 1. The peu‘iioncrs have pmfermd this writ pctiiion under Anick 227 of the Oonstituh'on of India being aggrieved by the onier dated 27.04.2004 passed by the 4th Addih'onal District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Miscellaneous Appcal No.66/2003, whereby the leamcd Addiu‘onal Dism'ct Judge dismissed tho appeal of the pen‘tioners herein and aflirmed the Older dated 21.102003 passed by the 9m Civil Judge, Class-H, Raipur, in Civil Suit No.38-A/ 2003, by whirh the learned Civil Judge allowed the applicah'on of respondent No.1 hemin dled under Order 39 Rules 1 6:. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedme and resuained the petiu'oners herein not to disturb the peaceful possessioh of xespondent No. 1 hemin and not to dispossess him hum the disputed land. 2. Briefly stated facts trading to ming of this writ petition are that the petitioners and respondents No.1 &. 2 axe closely related persons. Petitioner No. 1 is the son of mspondent No.1 and petih'oners No.2 8t. 3 ale gand sons of lespondent Nod and respondent No.2 is also son of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 he ‘ hled a civil suit before the 9dr Civil Judge, Class-II for permanent injunction mentioning themin that he xeceived 23 acms of agricultural land of Village: /Baihaar in succession and thereafter, he purchased 20 acxes of land of Village: Rasni and partih'oned the said lands of Village: Baihaar 8r. Village: Rasni and Par‘h of the petsrmg i.e. mspondent No. 1, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2 hemin got 14 acres of land in that partin'on and out of 14 acms of land of his shale, he donated 6.22 acres of land of Village: Bajhaar to one Kabir Kalyan Samiti, Baihaar and the temaining land bearing Khasra No.1281/ 1 axea 2.30 acms was in hie possession. However, on 16.07.2003, he came to know that his sons namely, defendants No.1 85 4 (pen'n'oner No.1 & lespondent No.2 hemin} got that land mutated in their names in the revenue records and on the suength of that mvenue mcotd, defendants No.1 85 4 i.e. petitioner No.1 & respondent No.2 herein, want to dispossess him horn that land. In order to restrain them, respondent No. 1 helein nled an application for issuance of temporary injunction along with the suit. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 herein med their reply in which they stated that their father has not donated the wicultuml land admeasuring 6.22 acres to Kabir Kalyan Samih', but the plaintiE (respondent No.1 herein) along with respondent No.2 is culn‘vating that land and as far as the land admeasuring 2.30 hectares bearing Khasra No.1281/ 1 is concerned, that land was voluntarily transferred by respondent No. 1 hexein to petitioners No.2 & 3 herein F and thereafter, that land has-been transmed in their names in the revenue records and they are cnln'van'ng the same. 3. Learned tn'al Court as well as the appellate Court reached the conclusion that in view of the averments made by the plainh'd and aEdavits of Bachhu, Shravan, Shiv Kumar 6r. Latel, the plainn‘d' is cultivating that land and the same has been given to them for cultivan‘on by the plaintih‘. The learned appellate Court further observed that the land in question is self-acquired property of respondent No.1 herein as the same was purchased by him in the year 1964 through a reg'stered sale deed and further the defendants have not denied the averments made by the plainn‘d that the partih'on of the agicultural land took place between the three. The learned Civil Judge further observed that when the plainiih' (respondent No. 1 herein) came to know about the resolution of the Panchayat dated 07.12.2002, he lodged a report in the Police Station: ’Arang With the allegation that defendant No.1 (pen'tioner No. 1 herein) obtained his signature by committing hand and deceit on him. Therefore, fhr plainiiE med an appeal before fht‘ Sub Divisional OEcer against the revenue entries, which were made in the name of defendants No.2 & 3 i.e. peu'h'oners No.2 & 3 hemin, in which the Immed S.D.O. gmnted stay against those armies. . While considering the prima facie case, the learned appellate Court further obscured that mexe entries in the Ievenue mcoxds does not confer legal n'ght in favour of those persons in whose name the entries were made. It was further obselved that irrigation book stands in the name of the plaintiH in which he paid Rs.525/— as irrigation charges and further the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Baihaar namely, Chandmkant Banjaxe and Upsmpanch Shivlal Sahu and other villagers have written a letter that the land in question is in possession of the plaintih‘. Therefore, the tn'al Court gamed injunction in favour of tespondent No. 1 herein considering the prima £acie case, balance of convenience and ineparable loss in his favour, which came to be aErmed by the hrst appellate Court. . Even though, supervisory jurisdich'on of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is wide enough, but at the same time while exemising the jurisdiction under Aru'cle 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court can disturb the hnding of the sub— ordinate Court only when (a) that Court has exercised a jurisdichbn not vested in it by law; or (b) to have failed to exercise the jurisdiction so veswd in it; or (c) to have acted in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity; or (d) the order of the sub-ordinate Court is patently perverse and contiary to the settled plinciples of law or reconi and if the same is allowed to exist/continue that will amount to failure ofjustice. . In view of the above principle of law, if we look into the impugned orders passed by the appellate Court i.e. the Additional District Judge as well as by the Civil Judge, I am of the opinion that both the orders are based on sound legal principles. While yanting temporary injunction, the Court is required to see that as to whether the plaintih‘ is in possession of the disputed property, ln this case, the persons who a1e cultivating the land in question on behalf of tespondent No. 1 have categorically stated in their a$davit§,/,/ v “ / that they am cultivau’ng the land on behalf of respondent No.1. Sax-panch, Up-sarpnach and other villagexs of Village: Baihaar have stated that the land in qucsh'on is in possession 0f respondent No. 1 and that land was purchased by lespondent No. 1 in the year 1964 through a mg‘stmed sale deed. Respondent No.1 herein also submitted neceipt of the payment of in‘igation chaxges. His allegation is that his sons Le. petitionerNoJ and mspondent No.2 herein obtained his siwature on blank papem by commim’ng mud on him against which when he came to know he has oled an appeal befom the S.D.O. and the S.D.O. has stayed the order mgarding the levenue entn'es made in favour of petitioners No.2 and 3 herein. Based on the above material, both the Courts have reached the conclusion that respondent No.1 herein (plaintiE in the suit; has a stmng pn'ma face case in his favour as also balance of convenience and ineparable loss. Themfote, the orders of both the Courts axe based on material available on mcoxd and also based on sound kgal principles. In the circumstances, it cannot be held by any stletch of imagination that the impugned order is in any way perverse or contrary to the law and material available on record or the Courts below have failed to exercise the jurisdiction or exercised the jurisdiction with illegality and material irregularity. 7. In the result, this wn‘t petition has no force and the same is devoid of any merit and it is liable to be dismissed. The writ petih‘on is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. y ' Sdl- L.C.BHAD00 "Judge 1 W y=~ Soma