-^ST ^lHld^, ^nt^^Ko, f®i<rii<ri^< *<Wd8 ^bNJ* "—£jy^c)"""5t>lT; '^ST "^^ .( ^I^S^) aqi^r^rfi^w WT 3??^T si»*iw <swi^R ^fta 3R^l (Sinale Bench; Hon'ble A^ W.P. (0 No Petitioners (Petition U//\ 226 of th 1. 2. 3. Vs Respondents Hirendro M aged 26 ye(| Mahendra aged 24 ye(j YogendraVI years. Alt resident art the Tahsil rt Jonjgir-Champl 1. Vedvyas, S| years. 2. Jawahar Ld 33 years. 3. Umeshchan<| years. A II above cull Mudpar in the| Oistt. Janjgir-({ 4. The' Statel Secretary- General Ad| Bhawan, Rai| 5, The Sub District Jarl 6. Brijraj Kum| aged about of Village (Shivrinaray^in) 7. The Tahsil Distt. Janjg| ^NfePft^ 'HR^ -^ fe^ iN^R i7^tf^?3??^T r. Justice Dhirendra Mishra^ 5063/2009 Constitution of India) [umar yadav, S/o Brijraj Kumar, krs. ^umar Yadav, S/o Brijraj Kumar, ^rs. ^idav, S/o Brijraj Kumar, aged 20 |d cultivator of Village Mudpar in Ravagarh (ShivrinQrayan) Distt. ti(CG) YO Umeshchand Yadav, aged 36 I, S/o Umeshchand Yadav, aged P, S/o Malikram Yadav, aged 65 |ivator and resident of Village Tahsil Navagarh (Shivrinarayan) phampa (CG) of Chhattisgarh, Through the Department of Home Affair [ninistration, Secretariat, D.K.S. |)ur (CG) pivisional Ma^istrQte, Janjgir, pgir'-Champa (CG) |ar Yadav, S/o Prahalad Prasad, p7 years, Cultivator and resident [Audpar in the Tahsil Navagarh Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C<5) ^lar, Navagarh (Shivrinarayan) jr-Champa (.CG) ^ ^ra^T^^^SI^<I^I^IM—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. ^fr T^ T^i^ii<n^, ^nl^^Ko, [®i<ni^< •WNCT8 %»*(!<^ T. ^^ TT=i^ (^i^^) 311^1 ^RT'f^N? ^IT 3?TT^[ sFRW ^nw^ft^^nt^ ^' Present: Mr. J.R. Verma, Advocate for the p| Mr. S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the| 08.09.2009 Heard. The petitioners hove filed wj mentioned in Pora-10 of the memo o| Grievance of the petitionej proceeding under Section 145 of Cr| and respondent No.6, the S.D.M.] Brijraj is in possession of the dispu') unsuccessfully challenged the Additional Sessions Judge, Janj] revision. However, the criminal revi dated 5.12.2006. Respondent Nos. 482 of the Cr.P.C. The said petiti 11.8.2009 passed in Cr.M.P. No.214 set aside and it was directed to property to respondent No.l <& 2. ^RM^ W^B ^ fe^ ifa^K ^•s^Hsii^r titioners. State. |th this petition for the reliefs as writ petition. 's in this petition is that in a IP.C. between respondent Nos.l & 2 declared that respondent No.6- j-ed property. Respondent No.l <& 2 orlder of the S.b.M. before the j^ir-Champa by way of criminal Ision was also dismtesed vide order |1 <& 2 filed petition under Section |on was allowed vide order dated y06, the order of the S.D.M. was Ihandover possession of disputed |It was also held that respondent ^RI^W^t^ ^»{1<;^<1^-1«<11M—FS/95 —11/2008—1,00,000. T w ^,^ 1 "t. A' ^ ~3"5sr ^|Mld<LI/ ^Til^^Ko, [®i<ni^^< ^WVK W*<8<5S% 3iT^r xra^r.(^ia®§^) ^^ ^FT ^W^ 'cCT^n^Tsn^w '^RHW^f^y 3?i^r -3- Nos.l <& 2 are entitled to retain pos^ due course of law. This petition has been file petitioners were never parties in Cr.P.C. either before the SDM or \\ the High Court. The petitioners ar^ property and are also in possession of the order passed in the proceec wherein the petitioners were not p be evicted from the disputed pro| hearing. I have heard learned counsel i From the documents availabl learned counsel for the petitionei possession over the disputed prope at one hand and respondent No.6 decidedby the High Court vide orde The instant petition filed by title and possession is not maintain and possession cannot be gone into would require recording of evidence ^S^i.d4N 'W^ ^ 'fe^T f^^R ^^ito^T^T ;ession over the land till evicted in j with the averments that the ^roceeding under Section 145 of 'efore any other forums including recorded owners of the disputed of the same. However, on account lings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. irty, the petitioners are likely to )erty without any opportunity of :or the petitioners. 2 on record and not disputed by 's, the dispute with respect to fty between respondent No.l & 2 3t another hand has been finally r dated 11.8.2009 (Annexure P-5). -/ the petitioners ^fi based on the ible as disputed question of title ina writ proceeding as the same However, the petitioners areat ^im^k^p? ^u}i^<4 <M-ti<liM—FS/95—11 /2008—1,00,000. T •7'.,. '•"'•^,";-;'-... '" 'u' - "-^-';';"-^ •^. ^ ~5^S r<{ww^, ^T\\WW, f®t<ni'M^< ^IWflWNI^ W( ^n^fT?^^ (^qi^^r) 3?I^[ '5RT ^Jcb TOT 3^T *^ich ^ ^<TOT ^Ra 3^1[ '^, liberty to establish their title by fj in the court of competent jurisdicti^ With the aforesaid obseh dismissed as not maintainable. Consequently, I.A. No.l also sljands dismissed. ohS^?.d4lR" ^R^ ^ 'fe^ ^N^R '^^Tf^iW^i ling properly constituted civil suit »n. 'ations, the instant petition is Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^I^^^U ^"IS^ <M-II^IM—FS/95—11 /2008—1,00,000.