$§ £1}: §§W% C r A» @® BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG; WRIT PETITION {2271 N0. -QWL OF 2010 PETITIONERS /’ 1. Smt. Nirmala Devi Kabra, W/o PLAINTIFFS Late Krishna Kumar Kabra, agEd about 5O years, R/o ‘village — Chhatamuda, Raigarh, Tahsil 8L District — Raigarh (C.G.). Bhavna Kabra D/o Late Krishna Kumar Kabra, aged about 26 years, R/o village — Chhatamuda, Raigarh, Tahsil & District — Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENT / State of Chhattisgarh DEFENDANT Through : The Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER OR ORDER§1 DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ’ L34 A ’ ‘ H‘GH CGURT OF GHHRTT‘SGARH AT BILASPUR Singig Bench: Honme Shg Justise Prgshant Kgmgr Mishra Wiit Petigion (zzn Ng. g422 t 231 0 Smi. Nirmala Devi Kabfa and another Stat of Chhattisgarh counsei for the petitioners. RESPONDEN? e Shri Santwh Kumar Tiwarh Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Depu’ly Govt. Ativucate mi the State/rapondent. ‘ ORAL GRDER (09.1 201 0) ¢f the CanStitutiofi a? inéia ction by Heard. (2) Thi$ is p‘ainfih‘ pétition under Articie 227 chairenging the both the Caurt$ berow, overnment grass rand in the (3) Adm‘rttedry, the Suit land i3 renamed a$ G revenue records. the suri fbr §eclarati0n of titte on the ground o (4) The ptainiiffe have {nee rejettion 0f hi3 piayer for grant of temparary injura .ihai they have prescribed title by adverse poeeeeeioh. Decree for nermanent ihjunotion hae eiso been prayed. {5) Both the Ceurte beiow have reiected the pta‘mt'rtte prayer for grant of tentperary iniunetion on the frnchnge that the subieot tand te recorded a5 graee tam; the ptaintitfe‘ prayer for grant ef tease or grant of Bhumtswami *‘WRtght has atready beeh reiectett; the ptaihtiffe have taiteo to produce any document evidencing their possession for more than 30 years; ptathtitfe have Versus WRIT Pg EH‘GN UNQEQ Agi ICLE 22? QF THE CONS“ EUHOQ OF lNDiA 1 . (g? mt med any affidavit of any ether pemon atong with the application and that the phintiffs having no titie to the suit tand, they have n0 pn'ma facie case in théir favour. (6) Leamed cmmsel for the petitioner has argued that sinca the suit iahd is recorded as graes iand and is situated within the iimite of Municipai ‘ Csrporatiah, the piaihtiifs cannot be removed by the Revenue Autherities aha that since no action has been taken by the Government Authorities for their removal, the niaintiffs are entitled to protect their poeseeeion. (7') Present is a suit for nectaration of titie on the basis of prescription of title by aeverse nessession. Ne decument has been tiled aleng with writ petition evidencing pletnh‘ffs’ pessession for mere than 3O years. Even otherwise mere tong possessien an the Government tand does not amount te prescription of title by adverse passession. it is also settled that pessession of an encroaeher cannot be protected and that the piaintifl’s’ must demonstrate semblance at title before it can be coneluded that a prime taeie case is made out to restrain the defendant's possession. (8) The instant petition is against the orders passed by the Courts beiow in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Order 3§ Rule t & 2 of C.P.C. From the documents annexed with the writ petition and the contents of the impugned orders it does not appear that the reasoning assigned and tindings recorded by the Courts beicw are perverse or that no person of ordinary prudence wouid arrive at such conclusion which the learned Courts beiow L have drawn. it is not a case where the non interference wouid occasion failure of justice. The Hon'bie Supreme Court, in the matter of Surya Dev l 1? RaiVVs. Ram Chander'Rar' and otherfs reported in 2603 (6) SCC 6T5 has i‘iaid down the principies that the High €ourt, in exercise of its iurisdiction i5” af §usti¢e or tha patty appMng for interfering with the impugned order‘ under Artic!e 227 tuf the Canstitution of lndia shouid not interfare far cannot be compeiiSated except by (9) For the aforesaid reasona {he inst-ant petition faits aiad i5 hereby di‘smi'Ssacf. ‘ A «/ 3di— J Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge