8 f':-sf%) "^^sy '^^ss^s a5^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBjy^PUN Single Benoh: Hon'Ne Mr. Justice Pritlnker Dlwaker WritPet!tionf227yNo,652S 0^2008 PETITIONERS PUMNTiFFS 1. Hamarayan, aged about 56 years RESPOMDENTS/ DEFEMDANTS 2, Vyas Narayan, aged about 50 years. 3. Laxmi Narayan, aged about 43 years. All caste Yadav, all son of Ram Narayan, cuitivator & business, R./O Janjgjr, Tahsil &- Dlstrict - janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Vepsus 1. Jangiram Chandel, aged ahout 65 years, S/o Not known, caste - Chandel, Ex-Manager, Saraswati Shishu Manciir Naila Vidyapani Shikshan Samiti, Naiia, TahsiS & DistFict JanjgJr-Champa (C.G»). 2. Pardeshiram Suryavanshj, aged about 60 years, S/o Not known, Ex-President, Nagar Palik Parishad, janjgir, NaiSa, R/o Janjgjr, Tahsjl & Distrlct - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 3, Rajaswa Nirikshak (Revenue inspector) Rajaswa Nirikshak OfRce, Jarugtr, Tehsl! & Djstrict : JanjgJr-Champa (C.G.) 4. State of ChhattisgaFh, ttirough Coiiector, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Shri Ram Kumar Tiwarii counset for the petitioners. Shri Anij Kumar Pandey, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Vivek Sharma, Pane^ Lawyer fQr the State/respondents No. 3 & 4. x ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTiTUTiON OF jNDiA ORDER (01.05.^)09) With the consent ofthe parties, matter is heardfinally, Challenge in thi®writ petitjon Is to the order dated 30.07.2009 passed by Civil Judge, Classll. Janjgir-Champa, in Civjl Suit No. 1QO-A/2007 by which ttie apDlScatjQn filed. by the plajntiff under Order 26 Rute 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for aDpointment of commjssjoner has been rejected. Contention of Shri TJwari, counsej forthe petitioners js that whlle passing the order impugned the court below has jgnored the basic principle governjng the law regarding jssue of commissjon to make jnvestlgation under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil PrQcedure as the commissioner should have been appojnted for the purpose of jdentifying the !and whjch is under dispute and the admitted fact js that the land in dlspute te bejng used by the defendants and they have taken over fte possession of the sam©. Shri Pandey, counsel for respondent No. 1 supporting fri© order impugned submits that the p!aintiffe have purchased p.30 acres of land and it is their own case that they are in pbssession of ttie entire !and. He further submits that pjaintiffs themselves fjled clema.rcation report prepared by the Revenue Inspector from which possession of the "^... Dubey defendante over the land in dispute is very clea.r and therefore there is no necessity for a.pDointjng the commissioner to make investigation. l have heard counsel for the parties and perused the materia! 8vaj|able on record. There is no jltegality jn tie order jmpugned nor there is any error apparent on face of the record warranting interference by this Court under Artlcle 227 of the Constjtution of India. The petitjon being wjthout substance js Ijable to be dismissed and it is hereby dtemissed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge