Peiitioners Plaintlffs jJCOURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BiLASPUR Writ Petition (Art.227i No.6331 of2811 1. Smt.Sundaria W/'o Late Sukh Singh Aged about 70 yeare, Caste Ha!ba, R/o viiiage Dhurwapara, Dhanora, Respondenis Defendants 2. 3. 4. 5. Tahsi! Keshkal, District Bastar (C.G.) Manrakhan S/'o Late Su i Singh Aged about 50 ysars, Caste Halba, R/o viilags Dhurwapara, Dhanors, Tahsi! Keshka!, District Bastar (C.G.) Makhan S/o Late Sukh Singh Aged about 45 years, Caste Haiba, R,'o viiiage Dhuwapara, Dhanora, Tahsii Keshkal, District Bastar (C.G.) Aoed Lakhan S/'o Late Sukh Singh Aged about 40 years, Caste Haiba, Wo viiiage Dhunwapara, Dhanora, Tahsii Keshka!, District Bsstar (C.G.) Versus Ganpat S/o Late Dashsru agsd about 52 years, Casfe Gond, R/o viiiage Dhurwapara, Dhanora, Tahsii Ksshka!, District Bastar (C.G.) Ramnath S/o Late Koiu, aged about 58 years, R/o vi!!age Dhun'rapara, Dhanora, Tahsii Keshkai, District Bastar (C.G.) Ghasi Ram S/o Late Bakhariya, aged about 70 years, R/o Viii'sge Dhurwapara, Dhanora, Tahsii Keshtei, District Bastar (C.G.) Vikram S/o Late Bakharia aged about 50 years, R/o viSSsge Dhurwapara, Dhanora, Tahsii Keshka!, District Bastar (C.G.) Dhanesh S/o Late Mangiu, aged about 37 years, R/o Vi!!sge Dhurwapara, Dhanora, Tahsil Keshka!, District Bastar (C.G.) about 28 Vinod S/o Sukalu, aged years, R/o Vi!!sgs Dhurwapara, Dhanora, Tahsii Keshkai, District Bastar (C.G.) "L 7. Shivprssad Mandavi S/o Ghasi Ram, agsd about 45 years, R/o ViHage Dhurwapara, Dhanora, Tahsil Keshkal, District Bastar (C.G.) 8. Radheshyam S/'o Sukalu, aged abouf 35 years, R/o ViUage DftURAfapara, Dhanora, Tahsi Keshka!, District Bastar (C.G.) 9. <;»<,*e ^f Chhattisgarh Through Coliector, Jagda!pur, Distrsct Bastar (Writ Petition under Articie 227 ofthe Constitution of indla) Mr.N.K.Chaterjee, counse! forthe petiti'oners. Respondents No.1 to 8 not noticed. Mrs.Sangeeta Mishra, Pane Lawyer for respondent No.S/State. (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) (14-11-2011) 1. By this writ petltion under Article 227 of the Constitution of india the petitioners have chaiienged ihe iegaiity and propriety of the order 1.10.2011 passed bythe Second Additional District Judge, jagdaipur, in Misc.CivJI Appesi No.4A/2011, affirming the order dated 16.8.2011 passed bythe Civii Judge Ciass-!!, Keshkai, in Civit Suit Nc.4A/2011, whereby appticstion for grant of temporary injunction fited on behaif of the peiiiioners/piainSiffs has bsen dismisssd. 2. I have heard leamed counsei for the petitioner, perused the order impugned and others documents filed on behaif of the petitioners. 3. As per ordst impugned, out of area 4.90 acres of ttie iand of kh^ra No.79/7Kha, 4.35 acres of the iand has been asld to Sukh Singh i.e. predecessor-in-tiite of the present petitioners, but 0.05 acres of the land hss not been soid to Sukh Singh. As per ctalm of the respondenis No.1 to 8, aiisged piace of warship is situated in remaining 0.05 acres of the iand and not upon the field of the plainfiffs/petiiioners, aithough as per ciaim of the pefitionsrsi'piaintiffe, respondentS No.1 to 8 are trying io encroach and dispcssess the ^ ^ petitioners from the part of land of 0.05 acres out of their iand purchased from Abdui Hamid. The iower appeiiate Court has dismissed the appeai on S'ns ground that without demarcation of the iand ciaim of the dsfinite part of 0.05 acres of the iand wouid not be 4. On due consideration, i do not fmd any iiiegaiity in ths order impugned warranting interference and demarcation wouid be oniy remedy. . Wiih the aforssaid obssrvation, the writ petition is dismissed summariiy. No order as to costs. S. 'interim appiication stands disposed of. T.P. Sharma Judge r1'll:" n'i""