® fSfa!4 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION 227 No. 2010 PETITIONER Judgment Debtor ^o ('O...-v'f ^s^: ^^^6^""" Madho Prasad @ Nankun Halwai age- 44 years,S/o Late Ramdayal, R/o Behind Jute mill Police station, Banjinpali, Raigarh,Tahsil and Distt, Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT : Smt. Ratan kuwar, W/o Durga, age- Decree Holder 50 years, Caste- Saura, R/o R/e- -E/e Behind Jute mill Police station, Banjinpali, Raigarh,Tahsil and Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OFTHE CQNSTITUION OFINDIA 1Sin|i|"i[^!nif7J|:]!l|iB!;.»:[:..SxWS'S"'' tit!.,iil.!;i.. .:,: ,;,,,j. !,.„„...——... -- i-r'.iii!-:. ' i k:SK!SS^S:!!. HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISCrARH : BILASPUR SWGLB BENCH : HON'BJ SH_RIJiaAmMDRAMOHAN^HjR!VASTAyA,J, PBTITIONBR Judgment Debtor RESPOMDENT Decree Holder TOrit Petttion (3271 Bo. 1267/2010 Madho Prasad @ Nankun Halwai VCTSUS Snit. Ratan Kuwar ,1."1 Writj'etition_ugidcrArticle 227 ofthe^Constitution oflndia Appearance: Shri Amit Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. ' ORAL ORDBR (Passed on 29th March 2010) This petition has beeu fited by fbe petitioner assaUuig validity of order dated 3/3/2010 (Anaexure P-1) passed by Civil Judge, Cl^s-I, Raigarh in execution case no. 131-A of 2002. 2. A decree was passed in favour of respondent/ decree holder fbr recoveiy ofpossession ofplot no. 103/1, sheet no.l, adineasitring 436 sq. ft. situated at BanjinpaU, Raigarh. The details of thc property iu dispute is specified ui the schedule appended to the decree. Wlien the decree was put to execution, the leamed Executing Court issued warrant of possession. However, on the spot, a dispute arose as the land ofiFered for possession by the petitioner/judginent debtor was not accepted by respondent/decree holder stating that the land ofFered is not the land ia dispute. On 15/05/2008, the Revenue Inspector also subinitted his report The leanied Executing Coitrt by iinpugned ordcr has recoided a finding with regard to thc identification of.the land which is the subject matter of execution under the decree passed iu favour ofthe respondent/decree holder. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner aigiied that the learaed Executmg Court has coinioitted grave iBegalily in identifying soine ofher land as the land described in the schedule whereas the petitioner had earVer offered to deUver possession ofthe land which according to him is fhe land described iu the scheaduJe appeaded to the decree. It is furtfaer submitted that as tfae -t''-!;,. :8. s!!a" %a'^ .J' J •3'^sp -2- decree holder refiised to take possession piirsuant to warraat of possession iu execution of decree, the execution case is liable to be dismissed. Subniission of the leamed counsel for the petitioner is that the decree was granted in favour ofrespondent for recoveiy ofpossession oflaad situated in sheet no.l, plot no. 103/1 admeasuring 436 Sq. fit. situated in village Banjinpali whereas fhe teamed Trial Coiirt vide impugned order has identified sonie other land which is actualty situated ia sheet no.9, plot no.67/2, 68/2 admeasuriag about 704 Sq. ft. situated in village Mitthumuda. 4. A perusal of fhc itnpugned order would show that the Executing Court after perusiug record, decree, report dated 15/05/08 of Revenue Inspector, Pan.chanaina and taking into consideration the stateinent of Revenue Inspector in the sult as also deiaarcation has coine to a conclusiou t&at the property shown to be in possession of petitioner/judgment debtor, Madho Prasad in Pancfaaaama dated 15/05/08 is fhe laad iu dispute under schedulc-A iUegaUy occupied by the petitioncr. It has also been recorded jthat fhe petitioner instead ofdclivering possession ofthe aforesaid land is offermg possession of soine ofher laud situated southwards which is not the land in dispute. 5. The finduig recorded by the Executing Court te essentialfy a finding of fact. In order to draw a conclusiou of lact that the land shown to be in possession of petitioner, Madho Prasad in Paachanama dated 15/05/08 is the land in dispute as shown ia schedule-A, the Executing Court has taken iuto consideration material on record. This Court therefore does not find aay jurisdictional error or perveisity committed by fhe Executing Coiut ia arriving at the conclusion and p^sing the impugned order dated 3/3/2010 (Annexzu-e P-1). In fhese circurustances, fbis Court is of the opiaion that no case for iaterference in. exercise of supervisoiy jurisdiction under Article 227 of tbe Constitutipn of India is made out. The petitiou is fherefore summanty disnussed wifhout notice to the ofher party. ^- Sd-1 ^^ ^a&^ul" jud^ s^vastava