^^^^~^.'~":r. 003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition N0. /2005 i v^ PETITIONER Plaintiff ^^ o- \<^ry e^/ 0^..-»^" yx^- ..••''^v<->'' ^^" "y RESPONDENTS Defendants A ,/::" ••.. Formal Parties // Bahadur Singh Aged about55 years S/o. Jagmohan Singh Occupation-Service in (Police Department) R/o. Village Chhote Atarmuda, Tah. & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS :1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector,Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Manager, Grih Nirman Mandal Branch office Boirdadar, Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Assistant Deputy Director Panchayat & Social service Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Munu Singh, aged about 60 Yrs. S/o Jagmohan Singh 5. Sundar Singh aged about 45 yrs. S/o Jagmohan Singh 6. Chhotelal aged about 40 yrs. S/o Jagmohan Singh 7. Shishupal Singh, aged about 35 yrs. S/o Dasharath Singh. No. 4 to 7 are agriculturist R/o village Chhote Atarmuda Tahsil & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) // 2 // To, The Hon'ble Chiefjustice and his puisne judges High court of chhattisgarh Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 ^ 3^T ^l^lcrt^, ^Tll^^S^, f^<ril^^< OT^rq^-^ Nmdl *^i* •-••^-•••^•••^y-^- 200^> 036 3TT^T^)T f^ri^3TT^T $b^icb?Tf^cT 3TT^T ?^<TTW ^cT Gbi^f^41-i ^i^^T ^* te^ <[^^i< ^)3Tf^T3TF^T p05 passed by learaed Ist Additkmal |A. No. 15/20054Ehereby dismissed tiie 4.7.20@S Shri B.L. Deembra, couns^l for the petitioxier, Shri P&rag Kotecha, Pane^ Lawyer for fhe State, By this wrlt petition un4er Artlele 227 of fbe Constitatton of India fhe pgtitioner has que^tioned fhe tegaUly^ oorrcetoeas and propriely of oxder dated 30,4,^ Di^tdct Judge^ Radgarh in M,C| misceUeaaous civil appeal of fhi^ petitioner and coiijBCTied fhe order of learaed 4A Civil Judge, Class-I^, Raigarh whereby leanied Civil Judge has rejected fhe application of fhe petfedoiier fited under Oider 39 Rules 1 & 2 offhe CPC. 1 Brief facts leading to fil^ng of thia writ petition are that fhe petitioner herein filed a civU suj}t before leamed 4th Civil Jadge, Glass- II, Raigarh for d^?laxation & mji|iD.ctioB fhat ffae petitioaer ia ffaie cwner of pond beanng Khasra No,48 jarea 2.81 acxies & Khasra No.56 area 4,88 acres and eattfled fi>r thatjlaDd. Further case of tibe petitioi»ris fhat the said pond is his aaices^ral pioperty, he is ia p>ssession of fhe said pond and usiag the sai^ pond wittaiout aay mterference and defendaats are not entitled for to the Housmg Board for fhej colony, possession or iaterfercixce m the said pond, In fhe year 2002 fhe Co^lector, Raipur has given fhe said poxid pur^se of constructioEi oi housiag 1C Repfy was ffled by fhe djefendaats in which it wa$ mentioisied that fhe plaiatiff is not enlifle^l for possession of any land aad the pond ia question is not recoidjed m fhe xiame of ptemtiff but it is a Goverament Nazul land and it i^ m their pc^session smoe 1998, XI-HC-22 3^T ^NKrl^, ^Tn<UJS<o, i^<r11Hy 3T^?T 037 q^eh WR^TT^RT^ ^ws0/^. ^ 200 f^s' 3TI^T^T R^i<=b3TT^T $b*4l<=h^TfN' J^ •^ ^\ ^^ •^ f'/^" 3n^T^<IT^R:^f?cT -7j <=hi<Mf<n41vi ^i^<nt*^tel<ft<Ri^K ^3Tf^R'3Tl^T After hearing fhe parttes i)rima-facie case aad balance of ^lso not ia his favoiir, Same que leamed court belaw disxaissed the ^ppMcatioa of the petitioner here]j& for graxit of tempoi^aiy mjunction <|>n fhe ground that ffae petitione^ faas xiot beea afole to aake out a convienence & irrcparaMe los8 are ^tion WB^ befere tht Ap^llate Court ^nd fhe AppeUate Court also affirE|ied fhe finding of flie court below. I have heard the teamed coi^nsel for fhe parties, Pfcrusal of fhe impugxied ox|der shD>WB tibat sioxx 1950 the said ^ond was recorded as Govenime^t Nazul laiid and fhere^fter, it is fai <|?ontiauous possession of the Gov^rmxieat The poss^sjon of fhe saM poud has alrcady been given to t|ie Housiag Board 6a 17.3.1998 fi)r ^he purpose of constnictton of ^ierem filed the civil suit iii fhe ye^r 2^)04, housing ootony aod fhe petittoner In view of the above order, ^iake out a case for interference b|y fhis Cburt undter Artiele 227 of the Constitution of India, There ar^ ^elow fhat fhe land ia question isj fead it is recoided in the record as| Therefore, I do not jBnd 8115) liable to be dismissed and it ^dmission stage itself the petitioaier has not beeH able to concurreiit fmdmgs of two courte m possession of the Houamg Board Govemment N^?ullaBd siac^s 1950, substance m this petitioii, saane ia is, acNXMxlic^fy, disixiissed at the Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^^f^r)