Qixiak ’ AWF ®_ C ,J‘I‘wlk/ BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CI'H—EATTISGARHE BILA$PURa S‘iwhg Elm§g s °A°No._ W4? _/ 2004(SB) , Magan lal Sahu, aged about 54 years, 8/0., Shyamlal Sahu, R/Oa Slrglttl, Tahg & Distto Bllaspur (chhatti sgarh) . RSUS 1) Motim Bai, aged about 5O years, W/o¢ Bisahu ram Rajak, R/oo Sir— gitti, Tah, and Distto Bilaspur, (chhattisgarh) . ' DEFENDANT RESPONVDEN‘E E: 2) State through of Chhattisgarh, Collectors Bilaspur’ ( Chhattisgarh ) . Appeal against eviction ané! possessionc *k Court fees paid Rs. 26°00 ( as per decree in appeal) o Lo]; Ina We WW .3/c234 wmg mm gm) amamm f 15-02-2095 done by the defendant her ‘ inaccessibla and she was not E RPKJ INS/350‘ i 2/2000~5€,000‘ wwv. Shri B.R.Ghosh, Counsel shri R.K.Tiwari, Cpunsali WW§§¢TW €531Tawevné¥rw for the appellant. or Respondent No. 1 . Heard on the quewon of mission. This appeal has been pr awed by appellant l defendant against ‘ the judgment and decree of wobon dated 20-08-2004 passed by portion of land marked in me wall; Thersuitwasliledonlhe oundthatbecause offheencroachment a rland behind me suit lard baome- l as‘ a result of which loss of Rs. case of the plalntlff before the tri ln the presence of me def demarcation encroachment mt map. by constructing a boundary r e'tohke the tractor to plough her field- OOOI— was caused per annum. Fur-her l Courtwes that demarcation wesdone on 28-10-1999 and ,in the eeio by the defendant was established; in the written statement defen?- No. 1 submitted ma he perehased - d e w [ ‘ l 1 v y l ‘ I WW. “ .. ....5““... n 3 . 1.... 1 1/..@.V....m.m 2 g: arnawi WE (@wm 7 Q?! ‘ @31 M “Emmmmrgwwg mzm‘qh WW? t? “m, ‘L? zfm‘g‘z ‘EK 3i??? aWE‘; 8 dacima! of Iand in Khasra No. 621/1 and constmcted a house by ‘ investing Rs. 10,00,000L. Def t No. 1 funher submits that he purchésad 0.01 Ame of land on 14% and as such he ms the ownerof0.09 Acresefland. r Leamed triai Court aker ‘ aming issues decreed the suit byr recording a finding that suit land suring 0.02 acres was purchased by'the piainmendshewasin on of the same. However the defendant started encroaching pen the same on 15-06-1999 by erecting a wail. The abo‘ve encr chment made by the defendant was also established on demarcation done by the Patwari as per the direction by the Tehsiidar and way of the plaintiff. was obsnucted nd he was unable to aka thetrector to her field. lt is further held that eplalntiff was enu'tted for damages @ Re. 200/— per annum as also th vacant possession of the suit land. The above iinding of the vial Court has subsequently been conhrmed by the rirst appellate Court whereby ‘ appear or me derendanr has been dismissed. Concurrent finding was recorded to the effeot that the suit r property was demarcated by the wari on- 28-10—1999 in presence of defendant No. 1. The Panchna preparedat thetime of demareadon’ also bears the signature of the de No. 1. The demarcation report > has been duly proved by Halka atwari who has been examined es P.W.1. The other circumshnce ch'has been relied'upon against die a 2% m, e n 0 a a ' t f i , WWW W § 4%%/0~4 W200 ‘mm— (13W) Wwm ‘ WW6?W +3—- $3ifvmm WW' possession of the excess land rec rded in his name.- Learnad counsel for the . penant submits that both the Gouns below have heavily relied upon : fact that the demarcatien was done i has been dealt with in para 10 of e judgment of the hil caurt in which it has been recorded that all the ' = the plaintitf have stetedv that Panchnama — Ex.P.2 was i pared in presence at me defendants judgment that signature in Ex. -1 in B te B portion tallies wim the signature ofthe defendantinthe :- : statement. GR? RJieFS/350—1-2/2000ii50,'0004 € ' 7" 04.“ amm wan—G? ma? WW WW W55 (W) $13LLW9/0‘7 @ZQQ