IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.} MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL fCft^C) N0. ?7 OF 2010 >T APPELLANTS Plaintiffs RESPONDENT Defendants ^b L^n'^u) 1. ^ /" VERSUS 1. Horilal Sinha, S/o Lalla Ram, aged about 53 years, Occupation "Service" Bheesham Lal Sinha, S/o Lalla Rarri Sinha, aged about 44 years, Occupation "Agricultural Work" Both are resident of Rangitola (Chichola), Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Indian National Highway Authority, Through: Director General manager, Sub-Project, Official Project Director, Project execution "Implementation" Unit A-7, V.I.P. Estate Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Sanjay Agrawal, Sub-DivisJonal Officer (Revenue) and Land Acquisition Officer, Four Lane, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Ashok Buildcon Limited, Vardhman Nagar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) s^""- . MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 frt OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE^908 2. 3. 'f'' "sms^ A"^ ^Cl %^ V. H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SJNGLEBENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. IVIiscellaneous Aopeal No. 77 of 2010 APPELLANTS Horilal Sinha and another. Versus RESPONDENTS Indian National Highway Authority and others. Shri R.N. Jha, counsel for appellants. Shri P.K.C. ThA'ari, Senior Advocats with Shri Shashibhushan, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 3. ORAL ORDER (12/05/2011) Following oral order of the Court was passed by Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. This is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of C.P.C. chaltenging the order passed bythe trial Court rejecting appellants/plaintiffe application under Order39Rule1&2ofC.P.C. (2) PlaJntifFs claims to be owner of lands adjoining the National Highway No.6 which is presently converted into Four Lane road and the contract of which has been awarded to respondent No-3/defendant No.3. (3) Plaintifis' case, in short, is that only 30 meter wide area from the middle of the road on either side has been proposed for the construction of Four Lane road and any area belonging to private holder falling wlthin said 30 meter area has been acquired, however the defendants are threatening to demolish plaintiffs' structure which is outsicie the said 30 meter limit. (4) In its reply filed before the trial Court to the plaintiffs' appticatjon under '^ / Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 the defendants have stated that the construction is ^', '& ^ '<•'•,"c^.. y il< ^— made only on the acquired area and if any additional/larger area is required for construction for any purpose like parking. toll plaza, footpath and any other amenities, the same shall be made only after following the procedure prescribed under the relevant law and further that the defendants or his agents/servants have never threatened to demolish any structure which is falling outeide the acquired area. (5) In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opjnion that the tearned trial Court has not committed any illegalify while rejecting the plaintiffs/appellants application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. ^•Jr (6) If any point of time.. the plaintiffs feel^ that an area more than 30 meter is used for construction of Four Lane without following due process of law, plaintiffs shall be at liberty to move the trial Court by filing documents in supportthereot (7) As a consequence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^