/^~^ PETITIONER/: (Plaintiff) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.385 of 2010 Hariwansh Krishi Farm and Forestry Private Limited Kholwa through Director Narendra Kumar Bhusania S/o Matadin Bhusania, Nehru. Ward, Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kholwa, Post Kholwa, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Natturam Dhruve, S/o Jankram Dhruve, aged about 40 years, 4. Lakhan Lal Dhruve, S/o Jahanlal, aged about 41 years, 5. BhuwanSingh, S/o Parsuram, aged about 34 years, 6. Ramji, S/'o Budhram Dhruve, aged about 20 years, 7. Vedram, S/o Kabilash Sahu, aged about 35 years, 8. Ramnarayan Sahu, S/o Panchram Sahu, aged about 30 years, 9. Smt. Nirmla, W/o Vedram Dhruve, aged about 40 years, 10. hlariram, S/o Asha Ram, aged about 40 years, 11. Vishnu, S/o Laxman Jangadey, aged about 40 years, 12. Kishan Das, S/o Triveniram, aged about 55 years, Respondent No.3 to 12 all resident in Village Kholwa, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.) {Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: Mrs. Anju Ahuja, counsel for the petitioner. Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent No.1. Mr. B.P. Gupta, counsel for respondents No.3, 5, 6, 7, 9& 10. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ^ Soma ® ORDER (22-11-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 31-12- 2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatapara in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1/2008 affirming the order dated 8-1-2008 passed by the Civil Judge Class-11, Bhatapara in Civil Suit No.SA/2007, whereby learned Civil Judge Class-11 has dismissed the temporary injunction application filed on behalf of the petitioner herein/plaintiff. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused copies of both the orders impugned and copies of other documents. 3. The land in dispute was pond and bund of pond which is alleged to have been purchased by the petitioner herein. Considering the disputed facts both the Courts below have declined to grant temporary injunction. 4. On due consideration, 1 do not find any illegality in dismissing the application for grant of temporary injunction and affirming the same requiring any interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. No order as to cpsts. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge