C57. ^ :^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT^ILASPUR W.P. j22Tj NO. 3470/2011 Smt. Shashi Diibey, W/o Prakash Dubey, aged about 52 years, R/o Neai' Laxmi Narayaa Teinple, Shyam Nagar, Polsai Pai'a, Durg, Tahsil & Distdct Durg (C.G.). PBTITIONBR DEFENDANT RE8PONDENTS PLAINTIFPS RESPONDENT DEFENDANT VBRSUS 1. 2. Diaesh Tiwaii, S/o Satyendra Narayaii Tiwari, aged about 66 yem's, R/o Rajabada, Motipara, Station Road, Durg, TahsU & District Durg (C.G.). The State of Chhattisgarh, Through The CoUector, Durg Tahsil & Distnct Durg (C.G.). WRIT PBTITION UNDBRARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF mmA. (SB :Hott?bIe Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri S. C. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vai-un Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Vinod KumarTekam, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 2. ORAL- ORDBR (Passedoa 04/08/2011) By fhis petition under Article 227 of flie Constitution of India petitioner has chaUenged fhe legality aad propriety ofthe order dated 23/3/2011 passed by 9th Additional Distdct Judge (F.T,C.), Durg ia Misc. Appeal No. 13/2010 disinissiiig tlie appeal against graat of itijunction passed by 8th CivU Judge Class-II, Durg m civU suit No. 22-A/2010 vide order dated26/4/2010. 2. Shri S. C. Yei-ma, Advocate for tlie petitioner, Shii Varun Sharnia, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Viaod Kuniar Tekam, P.L. for fhe State/respondent No. 2 are heard. 3, Order iinpugned, copy of plaint, copy of petition, copy of application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read wifh Section 151 of Code of CivU Procediire, 1908 aad copy of reply perused. 4. Leanied counsel for tlie petitioner submits ftiat petitioner has purchased plot beailag Khasra No. 149/24 aad as per case of ^'^: h\ ^ respondent No. 1, respondent No. 1 has purchased plot ia part of Khasra No. 150/6. 5. Leanied counsel for fhe petitioner further submits fhat present petitioner was not encroachiag or occupyin.g or constructing the road situated on Khasra No. 150/6 and Court below has passed iUegal order restramiag the petitioner froin constructing the laiid. 6. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner also subinits tltat he has ffled appUcation for deinarcation before fhe trial Court, On fhe other haad, Shri Varun Shanaa, learaed counsel for fhe respondent No. 1 & Shri Vinod Kumar Tekain, leanied P.L. for tlie State/respondent No. 2 opposed tiie petition. 8, Order impugned appears tliat fliere may be boundar}7 dispute of Khasra Nos. 150/6 & 149/24 and inay be adjoniuig laad, In tliese circunistaiices without ascertain actual location, construction over the laiid may affect fhe right aad UabiUty not only respondent No. 1 but also to petitioner. In fhese circuinstances, petition is disposed ofwitli fhe foUowiag observation fhaf Court below shatl direct for deinarcation of land on tlie basis of appUcation filed on behalf of the petitioner aiid authoritv to whoni such direction made shall demarcate tlie laad after suiniB^onuig both the parties aiid fheir presence and subiaitted its report as early as possible preferably witliui 2 months from. today fhereafter Court below shall consider aad is at Ubeily to pass suitable order/ niodification in fhe order ia teniis of Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of CivU Procedure, 1908. No order as to costs. T.P. Sharma Judge •f-