|N<»K»r ^tl HIGH COURT OF CmjATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. 6347 of2008 PETITIONERS PLAINTIFFS RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS : 1. Sonauram S/o Pilauram Aged about 55 years, Occupation Agriculture R/o Rambhata Para Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Smt. Kunti Bai W/o Panch Ram Patel, aged about 32 yrs R/o Vill. Kotrapali, Tah. & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Smt. Tapaswani Bai W/o Netram Patel, aged about 28 yrs R/o Rajiv Nagar, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. Ankur Prasad S/o Late Parmanand Sao^ Aged about 30 yrs. 2. Ratan Patel S/o Ganeshram Patel Aged about 32 yrs. 3. Pushottam Bareth S/o Firtu Bareth, Aged about 28 yrs. All are R/o Kotra Road Baikunthpur Rajiv Nagar, Tah. & Distt. Raigarh WRLT PETITIQN UNDERARTICLE 227 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hoh'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: ShriNeelKanthMalviya, Advocate forthepetitioners. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14th day of November, 2008) 1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 24.09.2008 (Annexure P/8) whereby the Civil Judge, Class II, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No. 78- A/2008 whereby objection of the petitioners to demarcation report was rejected. 2. The indisputable facts as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for declaration of title and possession ofthe suit land situated at Patwari Halka No. 13, Baikunthpur, Raigarh, Khasra No. 29/3 Gh/1 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Class II, Raigarh, which was registered as civil suit No. 141-A/2002. The suit was decreed in the favour of petitioners/plaintiffs on 30.04.2003 (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the -..-.—-^^^fe ^^•^^:,%^ isl3s, lf y: •-^^•^ vu. K defendants/respondents against the decree passed in the Civil Suit No. 141- A/2002. It was also disposed ofwith certain directions to both the parties. The petitioners, thereafter filed an application under section 151 of the Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') as per observation of para 10 of the appellate court seeking demarcation by the competent revenue officer. In the application filed under section 151 ofthe CPC^ the trial court on 11.1.2008 directed the Tehsildar for filing demarcatiori report in respect of the suit land (Annexure P/5). A report was produced with Naksha Panchnama and Khasra Panchsala by Revenue Inspector. The Revenue Inspector, afiter preparing the report, filed the same before the Court directly and not through the Tehsildar. The petitioners objected the demarcation report submitted by the Revenue Inspector. The Trial Judge rejected the application on the ground that the demarcation was done in presence of both the parties, other persons and Patwari. Thus, there was no reason to disbelieve the report. Accordingly^ the demarcation report was accepted. The Trial Court accepted the report and proceeded further. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the acceptance of demarcation report is bad in law as the Trial Court has directed the Tehsildar to file the report. The Revenue Inspector, on the basis of directions issued by Tehsildar, prepared a report and filed before the Court, as under law, the Tehsildar alone is competent to file report. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The acceptance ofreport filed by the Revenue Inspector is not contrary to the provisions of law as the Tehsildar has directed Revenue Inspector to prepare the report. Normally, ^.l^'^ ^^s^ \f the report is prepared by Revenue Inspector only. The report was prepared in presence ofboth the parties, other persons ofthe area and Tehsildar. No objection was raised by either parties when the report was prepared. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioners is not tenable. The order impugned herein is neither perverse nor illegal or contrary to the provisions oflaw and as such.no interference is warranted. 6. This Court^ in exercise of its super/isory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record^ which is not in the present case. 7. In view of the foregoing and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. 8. Consequently, I.A. No. 1, for grant ofinterim relief^ also stands dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit