^ CWRT C^ CHHATTISSARH AT 3ILASPUR Writ Petition (O No. 1903 of 2007 Versus idiadur Singh S/o. Tagmohan Singh Aged about - 56 yeors Occupfftion - Service, PoHce &eporttnent, R/o.- Chhoteata-muda, Raigarh, Tahsii & Distt. - Raigarh (C.©.) 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through:- Collector, ftaigarh 2. Manager, Housing Bocrd. Brcnch Offtee, Boirdadcr', Ruigarh (C.6.) 3. Assistant &eputy Direetor, Panchayat cmom S<»najSewa, Raigarh (C.©.) 4. fr'iuni Singh S/o. Jagmdian Sin9h, Aged about - 60 yea's Sundar Singh S/o. Jaqmohan Sin9h, ^ged about - 45 ye<rs 6. Chhoteial 5/o. Jagmohon Sin^i Aged about - 40 yeors *7 f . Shidiupa! S/o. Lote D^hrath Sir^h, Acfe-d obout 35 yews No. 4 to 7 - Occupation Agriculture ft/o. Oihote Atarmuda, Roigarh, Tdisil & bistt. Roigarh (C.6.) Sirgte Bench: Hon'bte ttr*. Justice Satish K. ^mhotri. Present: Mr. A.K. Athaley, Adyocate for the petitioner". AAs. Sunita Join, Pane! Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 and 3. OR E> 6 R (Passed m 2" day of April. 2007} 1. By this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, ths petitioner challenges the Segality and validity of the order dated 8.2.M07 passed by the First Additional Oistrict Judge, RaigcB-h in Miscetlaneous Appeat No. 43/2CX)6 (Annexure P-6). wrtiereunder the appeal filed ogainst order dated 27.11.2006. possed by the Second Civi! Judge, C!ass-II, Raigarh in Givt! Suit No. 50A/8X)4 refusing to gr-ant teraporory iryunction cgainst the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. 2. Ths indisputabie facts, in nutshe!!, ore thot the petitioner fited a Civil Suit for declarotion of tltie and permonent injunction over the disputed land bearJF^ Khcsra ?>to. 48 admeasuring 2.81 ond Niasra No. 56 atmeasuring 4.S total 7.69 ^cres situcrted at vi!!sge Chhoteatarmuda Patwari Halka No. 13, Tahsil and District Raigorh. ^Song with the ptaint, the petitioner filed an application under order 39 Rute 1 and 2 of the Code of Civi' Procedure praying for temporary iryunction <gainst the defsndonts/respondents No. 4 to 7. The Second Civi! Judge', Cicss-II, Raigarh dismissed the spplieation vide order dated 27.11.2CX)6. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the Miscellaneous Appeat before the First Addifionai District Tudge, Raigarii. In Miscellaneous Appeal ^to. 43/2006, vlde ordep dated 8.2.20)7, the First Additiona! bistrict Judge. Raigarh observed that the petitioner in the plaint itself has pleaded thot the Housing Board hog tnitiatedconstruction of the 'nouse on the suit land ond the petittoner wss not in possessiy of the suit !and. Thus, suit for dectaration of tit!e and for permanent iry'unction wos fited. Admittedly, when the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that the Housing Board is in possession of the suit lond, relief for temporary' injunction under order 39 Ru!e 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be gronted. Thus, it was held that ttie order- pcssed by the Second Civi! Judge, CIass-II, Raigarh was legal, valid . I have heord !e<rned counset appearing for the petitioner and have gone through the pleadings ond the impugned order. The First Additional DistHct Tudge, Raigarh has rightly appreciated the dispute and the plesdings while holding that the possession of fhe suit land was not with the petitioner but with the Housiriq Boord and the suit for declaration iryunction itself indicate thaf the petitioner is not in possession with the suit 'and. Thus, there is no illegatity, perversity, irregularity or jurisdietiona! error to cal! for indulgence of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus. petition is accordingiy dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, I. A. 01, an application for grait of interim relief, stands disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Subhssh