M INGLE BEN I A ) _,8 7 w .... , daled..... ........ SGARH ATBILSPUR ms. I? OF 200 ETITI E ‘ni "Kumar 'Kathuriya Son of Sh yhan Kathuriya, aged about ears eient-(of G—230 Ram artme olon, opa M.P.), rou: Pwer o Late' ‘riUodraj Resident o i PON R /Al ri ~Udéb yy L y Rsd /5, a 'u aiur istri‘ aipur C.. 1 Nhrpar and aaa gh Gh N Mdal ar rl lrman an ~ nka Na‘gar alpur Tahsul a a ur (C.., rou Ommissioner, . r arnar Naar irm'fani Second Kbir a , and aga C as: Heerapur i aipur (.G.. R C) ‘o hats ~ lo hrou J(»C. ,g.,.y/ f Chtigarh, ‘apu RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION O W F NDIA 1950 FO IS , ODER (O O , ‘ R SUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT lWRITSl R RDERS), AND DIRECTION (DIRECTIONS), TO D ‘ CIVIL ATTER S CH Apnt, Cy Bhl (‘ Thgh O f Attorney' Holder Jagdish Arora, Son of ShBh, f Tahsl r Dct R (G). Glmohar Rp, -i VERSUS S , R, nd“ R G) Thgh. C CG. Gih Shk g, N Mandal Nr, Distrit ddres ‘ r , Tahsl e Colectr p Tgh- G.) Rlr r. Vnle‘enc: SiqBh Hh’l obe SJPS hri’lusticer'ahant KéMha‘ umr"isr Wt Piti LC) N18 07 ri eton . o.~58 Of 20 Per etition A thya nil Kumar 'Kauri ers vus hhattiarh, 'Gri Rpds esonent rm ana a n Csg h Nian Mdl nd aother iPt resen hrl Mala Kumar aun counse or te petitioner S y Bhd l f h es RanJan Slnha Panel Lawer for the State/resond \ Shn, ' Jh y pent RAL ORDE Passed on 9>Setembe ‘ea‘r Hd. 12., ‘ VT pl pt d Atl 227 f h Cttn“ hls Is alntlff’s eltlon uner rlce o te onstlulo 'of Id hllgg th d dtd 7207 (A P 3) nra caenin e orer ae 2—4-0 nnexure pd by h t C jtg h aplt d S 94 asse te rial ourt reecin is picaion uner ectlon read with Section5l Of-fthe COdeof Civil Procedure; 1908 ‘‘‘‘1 (hefrth ‘he C’) enco ~t ode. rr e su or elarao a 3. The plaintiff has prefeed th it f dctin nd” p‘ntijti ig tht th i ld bgig to, ~.ermane-<nuncon\ claimn a e ,su‘t an elonn Bisahinbai was puhased by him vide registred saledeed dated ' rc e - 30-7-1987 however, the subject land has sUbsequently \n , bee d th 0f thstte Gnnt tht ifeihim recored in e name exa overme wiou nrmng and Without registering any case-'either‘againstBisahinbai' o nst . r agai te plaintiff under the proviions of the Urban L (C‘gd h s and eilinr‘an HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitionrunder Article 227 o‘f'theIConst‘itution of; lhdia O R ( ‘“pr, 20,10) Regulation) 'Act,* 1976. The land has been allotted to' defendant/respondent No.1 Chhattisgarh'Housing Board on 25—3— ’ ,2005 and the Collector, Raipur has‘ ordered for ha'nding over advance possession to respondent No1 According to the plaintiff‘ he Is In possessron of the suit land and If the respondents are > permitted to dlspossess him he shall suffer Irreparable loss p4. The case of the defendants/the‘Chhattisgarh Housing Board and the State Government was that the land has already vested in the State Government on account of the vesting order passed against the original owner of the land under the provrsrons of the - i Urban‘Land (Ceiling and 'Regulatlon)-Act,‘ 1976 It is recorded In the ' A} ’ ' ' a name of the State'G’overnment in thelrevenue records andrthe State‘ " Government is in possession it has been allotted to defendant No 1 the Chhattisgarh Housrng Board by the Collector Raipur for carrying ‘l'l‘ .j _ , on Its housmg/actlvlty It was categorically stated that the vesting ‘ was notined in the‘OfFCIal Gazette on 18-2-1983 and posseSSIon was also obtained from Bisahinb‘ai. ‘ V ' 5. The trial Court rejected the application under Sectiont94 read ”T? ‘ ' With Section 151 of the Code after nndlng that the plaintiff has no w v ' ,prlma faCIe case or balance of convenience In his favour and Is not likely to suffer Irreparable loss The trial Court has conSIdered the ‘ a effect of the vesting order passed. by the competent authority under “the Urban Lan'd (Ceiling and RegUlation) Act 1976 and the, subsequent act of the Collector Ralpur to allot the land to the Chhattlsgarh Housmg Board It has been observed that smce the > ‘ / land already stood veSted In the. State Government by notlfcatlong dated 18 2 1983 the said Blsahlnbal had no authority to execute the sale—deed m favour of the plalntlff on 30 7—1987 Ir'I Wander Ltd. and another Vs. Anto‘x India I5. Ltd., 1990 (Supp) SCC 727,.the‘Hon’ble Supreme'Court‘has held sin paragraph I ’ 14 of the report thus:‘ 14 The appeals before the Division Bench. were ' against the exercise of discretion by the Single'Judge. In such appeals the appellate cOurt will not interfere with. , the exerCIse of discretion of the court of first Instance and ' _,substltute Its own discretion except where the discretion , has been shown to have been exerCIsed arbitrarily, or ' caprICIously or perversely or where the coult had Ignored x .the settled prInCIpIes of law regulating grant or refusal of Interlocutory Injunctions An appeal against exerCIse of ‘ discretion ls said to be an appeal on prInCIple Appellate below If the one reached by that court was reasonably drscretron under appeal solely on the ground that If It had t conSIdered the matter at the trlal stage It would have come to a contrary conclusron lf the drscretron has been exercrsed by the trral court reasonably and In a JudICIal I v manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken ' 7 a different View may not Justify Interference With the trial ‘ ' court’s exerCIse of discretion After referring to these prmcrples Gajendragadkar J In Pnnters (Mysore) Pnvate Ltd v Pothan Joseph (1960) 3 SCR 713 (SCR 721) These prInCIples are well establlshed but I * as has been observed by Viscount Simon In Char/es osenton & Cpuv. Jhanatqn; 1942 Ac 1‘30 ‘ the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of a“; court WIII not reassess the material and seek to reach a , conclusmn different from the one reached by the court pOSSIbIe on the material The appellate court would , ’ I normally not be justifed in Interfering With the exerCIse of ,, is discretion is’ well esta’blished, .and any difficuit a arises is‘ ue only to the apIica > stti n di " eed, priciples in an invidual case'. e appeiate judgment does not seem to h rincile he trial Court has exercised ‘the Urisdiction under Section 9 7. T j 4 read with Section 151 of the CodeJafter‘considering‘th'e principles fo r g rant of temporary ”injuhc‘tibni-in elaborate ”and objective manner. here is no perversity ither inwther approach or ini'the findin T e g ecore by te tria Courtwhile ismissin the application preferre rdd h l dg d b e y theplaintiff under Section 94 readwith Section 151 of the Cod. he instant writ',etition,'bein devoid of an s’ubstance, fail 8. T pg y s ad is herebyrdismissed. n 9. Needless to say that thefnding recorded by the trial Court at 'i this stage‘of‘the Suit while considering the. prayer for grant of temporary injunction, is Only to conside the existenceof prima‘fabie r ca‘se‘,‘ alance of Convenience 'a‘n‘d' irreparable loss and the suit shal l ultimately be decided on, the basis of evidence adduced by the arties in Course of trial. The findings recorded at this stage ar p e without reudice tov’rihts of the arties to the suit. pj g p Sd//— Prashant Kuma‘r Mishria Judge vm an ordey made- by a judge below in the exercise of h y tht d ptiOn of Well ‘ Th l defer totis pp.”