i5>!<'^feii 9 SS-ff'". '?. ;*^*<i'fe*A.':- ~"EI '-=:" " " C ^, ld BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF_CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 7 W.P.(227)No.\^Lf of 2011 RESPONDENTS/ Plaintiffs PETmoNER/. :'-/ Ajay Kumar Chauhan, S/o Vipath : no- 1 Chauhan @ Dipeshwar Chauhan, aged about 40 years, R/o in front of Muslim Pakistan^ DistrictRajeev Nagar Bhjlai, Tahsil & District-Dura CC.G.' VERSUS ^ :1. Ashish Kumar Lal, S/o Subodh Kumar. aged about 43 years, Occupation- Service, // 2. Anil Lal, S/o Subodh Kumar, aged about 42 years, Occupation- Agriculturist, - 3. Smt. Ashrita, S/o Subodh Kumar, aged about 39 years, Occupation-Service^ 4. Smt. Shilpi Lal, W/o Late Subodh Kumar, aged about 70 years, All R/o Sector-8, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil &District-Durg (C.G.) , 5. State ofChhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Durg (C.G.) n^/ WRIT PETITION UNDER ART'ct-E 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFJNDIA. ^M^ .>:^ ..!& <^ ^s-" ii ^L- '^ y s c-y'^i,? --. ^^ ^ - ^\"^\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR Writ Petition (227) No. 1334 of2011 PETITIONER : Ajay Kumar Chauhan VER8US RESPONDENTS : Ashish Kumar Lal & others WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA fSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Asarwal. J.) Present : Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocatefor the petitioner. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 11.03.2011) The instant petition filed under Order 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the order dated 18.11.2010, passed by the XIth Civil Judge, Class II, Durg, in case No. 24-A/09. The trial court directed for demarcation of land bearing Khasra No. 252/1, Area 1.19 Hect. Accordingly land was demarcated and demarcation report was submitted by the revenue authorities. The petitioner raised an objection that land bearing Khasra No. 252/2 is not demarcated. Admittedly, the land required to be demarcated was land bearing Khasra No. 252/1. There is no necessily for the revenue authorities to demarcate the land bearing Khasra No. 252/2 without any order of the trial court. Having. heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and havini perused the order impugned, I do not find any illegality or material 3>ru. l I.U&MI.I .•i-sta.ajl.jSRBswssik-. irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference of this court under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. 5. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitirtion of India, should refi^in itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional en-or is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 6. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. Sd//- N.K. Agrawal