® (f éw Lt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR Singh Rem SECOND APPEAL N O. £19 g1. Rakesh Kumar son of Siddhanath Pandey aged 32 years d‘Z. Hitesh Kumar aged 32 years son of Siddhanath Pandey 2'. Rajesh Kumar aged 26 years son of Siddhanath Pandey «4,. Prafull Kumar age 20 years son of Siddhanath Pandey I“ 5. Pradeep Kumar aged 18 years son of Siddhanath Pandey 6. Ku. Suman aged 22 years daughter of Siddhanath Pandey all of them resident of Telipara Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Appellants fi‘aintiff VERSUS Respondents — “,1. Sub Divisional Officer Rajnandgaon & / {/D'efendents Conpetent Authority under Ceiling Act Rajnandgaon (C.G.) /2,./State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Rajnandgaon (C.G.) : Awadhesh Kumar aged 32 years son of Rameshwar Mishra Resident of Ambagarh Cowki, Tahsil Ambagarh Cowki, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) @vSmt. Kanak Shukla aged 4O years wife of Vijay Kumar Shukla r/o Dalli Rajhara, Tahsil Balod Distt. Durg C.G.) ./5'. Smt. Meena Pandey aged 30 years wife of Rajendra Pandey r/o Nutan Colony, Tahsil & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. Smt. Manisha Pandey aged 36 years wife / ,. of Dwarika Pandey r/o LMungeli, Tahsil Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) k Smt. Kusum Shukla aged 30 years wife of Ajay Kumar Shukla r/o Khmhi Bajar, Tahsil Mungeli,,Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) @e «rm 3 NEXURE A-1 (A / > MEMORANDUM OE SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 00 OF THE CODE OF CIMIL< PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 20 10 2005 PASSED BY DISTRICT ‘K/ JUDGE RAJNANDGAO DISTRICT RAJNANDGAON (C G ) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO 5 A 2003 WHICH S ANNEXED AS AN 7 EXUREA-l AFFIRMINGTHE JUDGEMENT AND I, DECREE DATED 28.01.2000 PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE CLASS-I AMBAGARH COWKI DIS- TRICT RAJNANDGAON IN CIVIL SUIT NO.Q9)A[ 1982 RAKESH \KU‘MAR AND OTHERS VERSUS WW ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE A-2. NEXURE A-2 AN AN §$ i XI-HC—78 / ,/ I~HC-78 90K EW,W,W Wm ..0.0. tOtOo‘OOO‘OotQ‘ H1 200 W'W (W) WWEWW mm WWW k £ ’ %€aw%uan%¥! which Ems exgcufed merely to stume fhe provisions of M. P. Cemng on Agricutfura! Holdings Act d’n These premises, #he learned Civil Judge Ckxss-L Rqgnandgaon dismi5sed the suit Aggrieved by fhe ' said jud§ment fhe iega! represenmtives of 5m. Vidya Devi preferred First Appeal No. 512% cf 20G3 befcre The !earned Diarict Judge, Rajnandgacn. Recording a concur-rent firding, fhe First Appeai was also dismissed. I have perused the record cf Civil Suif No. 9-A cf 1983 and sf the iower Court as aiso fhaf of ihe Firsi Appsiicrre Court. I a cf fhe cansidered cpinion Thai no subsfamiai quesfion of iuw is in oived in this appeal. This appeai is dismissed sf the siege 9f edmis ion. Consequenfiy, M.C.P.NG. ef 2006 far siay and I.A.Ne.205 6 J have aiso parused the judgm cf 2006 stand dismissed. No o der as 1-9 cesis. E’ , i .ar 3/, Sd—I Saheb Deshmllkh Dilip Rao Judge e