» ^ o •^\ IN THE NIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH BILASPUR WRIT PETITION U/A 227 N0. S522- Sinfll©B©ndi OF 2009 tj^WM^? ; <5|tf>^TP?-T^ .,«.^" ^^r.. ' 9'c>-" ^' ...•<J><*' v^^^ .^!^ ^'..••'w^y ^\^/L(y.y y-y^" ^^ .**' ftESPONDENTS l^^fc^/< ^ l.,^-^.: \''^. '^~^//'^ '\Y^.^ _ ^ ^•^; T^'^: l^ h 1. 2. 3. 4. Ashok Kumar S/0 Sew^ram Agrawal aged about 40 years. Ajay Kumar, S/0 Sewaram Agrawat/ aged about 35 years Ghansiram S/0 Sewaram Agrawat, aged about 51 years. Smt. Indramani Devi Wd/0 Sewaram Agral, aged about 75 years. All are R/0 Ward No.7, Shakti, Tahsil- Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS (3.) Smt. Deoki Devi D/0 late Shri Rameshwar Das Agrawal, Wife of Om Prakash Agrawal R/0 Kharsiya, Tehsil Kharsiya, District- Raigarh, (C.G.) (2) Vinod Agrawal S/0 Rameshwar Das Agrawat. aged about 45 years. (3) Shaitendra Agrawal, S/0 Vlnoct Agrawal, aged about 29 years. Both are R/0 Sakti, Ward No.7, Tahsil Saktio, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 227 OP THE CONSITXTUTtON OP INDXA \ ^oA^ 'y NII*1CTI <(»*1ic»» T^r ^i^id^, ^Ti1^^<o, f®i<ni^^< ^?.£&^....&^..^oo9 ^ii^r 1q^r (^f^^) 311^1 ^T'f^iW ^IT^H^IiF^ i^TW^fl^^l^ ebl^id^l^ 'WT^ff ^^S ^^8< ^ 3?R?H 3Tit^T S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. A< 29.07.2009 Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocai Heard on admission. arwal e forpetitioners. The instant petition is dir^cted 14.07.2009, passed by Additional| Appeal No. 3/09, whereby and wh^reunder the petitioners against the appoi| |Commissioner for spot inspection, ^ against the order dated District Judge, Sakti; in Misc. the objection raised by itment of Tahsildar, Sakti; as |as been rejected; jdirection, both the parties gave] advocates out of which one ougt1 Shri Tripathi submits that ^arlier on the appellate court's Commissioner. But instead of ap|)ointing any iearned Advocate the names of two iearned t to have been appointed as 33 Commissioner, the court appo) pommlssioner. Shri Tripathi further submits jispute any technical person i.e. E^ p have been appointed as Commis^ i have heard the counsei apj |)erused the record. in my opini' nted the Tahsildar, Sakti, as that iooking into the nature of ^gineer or Sub Engineer ought ^ioner for spot jnspection. |)earing for the petitioners and |3n, as the dispute relates to ^ispection of damage caused to th|e disputed boundary wail, the ^w^^^^N ^^n^? n^r-it^f^—FS/95—13 /zoo^—i ,00,000. T ;i ::~-^Wift^ :: '^' ~3^r ^ii^Kn^ ^Ti1<rj4i<o, [®i<ni<H^< ^THdi wii<n '"^200 ^?T x(^^ (^3^?) ^g^l^TfelT^ ^IT^ilt^T ^frjW Sahu i^i?W€^T3?T^T locatlon of the property is not oth^r independent technical person oug*n|t court. Accordingly, it is dlrected tha] Sub Engineer of Pubiic Works instead of Tahsildar, Sakti, on pa^ the petitioners herein and direct ^ eariiest. With this observation and |disposed of. However, if the n Igrievance then they are free to m< lorder asto costs. ^l^id4^ 'STR^? ^f fe^ '^t^s< ^atRR^n^i rwise in dispute; therefore, any to have been appointed by the the trial court sha!! appoint any Department as Commissioner tment of requisite expenses by im tosubmit his report at the [direction, this petition stands |spondents herein fee! some |)ve appropriate application. No Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^TRf^i ^^ ^^TT^l <T5[-{t^i<?—FS/95—11 /2G08 —1,00,000.