^^^a^^^^^^ HtGJiCQURTCff^^HATTiSGARHAT BILASPUR ^ Sinale Bench : Hoh'bte Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Appellants/ Plaintiffe RespondenM ©efendants Second Aopeal No. 456/2007 1. Ramcharitra, S/o Ramadhin Sahu, Agedabout 55 Yrs; 2. Rajeshwar, S/o Ramadhin Sahu, Agedabout35Yre.BothResidehtof Viliag® Katgodi, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt.Korea(C.G^ ^fereys 1.(a) State af? ©hhaUsgarh, TSrough Ctollgetor^^^K^ K6rea(G;G.) > (b) Additional Collector, Korea, Baikunftpur, Distt. Korea (C.G^ (c) Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baikynthpur,Distt.Korea<C.G.) 2. ViftagePanchayatKa^odi Through \. •'. .'" .•.'..;•' ...".•..•'.: • • •; ••'" (a) Sarpanch.Village PanchayatKatgodi, Tahsil Sonhat, Distt. Korea (C.G^ 1 (b) Secretary, Village Panchayat, Katgodi, Tahsil Sor)hat, Distt. Korea IVIemoofADDealUnderSectionlOOoTtheGodeofCivil ProoS(u Present : Shri Prakash Tiwari, counsel'for the appellante. Shri Akhil /^rawal, Panel Lawyer ^E a,the State/respc)nclentsNo.1(a)(b)and^). . % ORALORDBR (Passedon 1st Nbvember, 2007) Heardon admjssion. 2. The appellants are aggrieyeiE|;by the;ji^ment arid^ c^^ dated 10-08-2(X)7paSsedbyDistrJctaudge,Korea(BaikunthRUt5in r ?t liH Kvr Civil Appeal No. T9-A^006 whereby the Judgment and decree dated 31-01-2006 passed by the Ciyil Judge, Class-l, Baikunthpur in Civll SyitNo.25-A/1998diSmissingthe'plaintiflis'suitwasafRrmed. 3. Leamed counsel fbr the appellants did not dispute that the claimoftheappellantswasbasedbntherightofeasementandthat the construction of Aanganbadi Bhawan was dpne on Government land. - ,: • ! ! • • • ^ . 4. Having considered the submission, I have perused the judgmentofthelowerAppellatBCourtasalSoofthefriaieourt.Bpth the C^urts below on^ appreci^ipn of^^^^^ as well as documentary recoFded a firKjing of^fact tliat nolhindrance in^^^^ manner is caysed in tHe right of easement of the plaintjfis by the eonstruction of Aanganbadi Bhawan. The Ipwer appellate Court has, in paralSofthejudgmentaIsoconsideredtheadmisstohmadeby theplaintiflsandhiswitnessestothatefFect.^ 5. Inthis viewof thematter, 1 amoftheconsideredopinionthatin view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below, no substantial question of law arises fordetermination in this •appeal.. .: ,/ •' ':;; /' : /, • ' . : : 6. Theappealisdismissedatthestageofadmission. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Jydge ]t,.-|]..UL,,.,: