5 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C. G.) W. P. (227) N0, &)°^ OF 2011 PETITIONERS/ DEFENDANTS ^•'-^y \r^--^"i. ^<^<y ^'^y' RESPONDENTS/ PLfim-tiFp >-'„ ^Ur 1. Nirmal Sinha S/o Nandram Satnan-ii, aged about 38 years. 2. Narsingh Sinha S/o Nandrain Satnami, aged about 35 years. 3. Bhuwan Sinha S/o Nandram Satnami, aged about 33 years. 4. Uttam Sinha S/o Nandram Satnami, aged about 29 years. .5. Nandram S/o Dauram Satnami, aged about 60 years. 6. Noni Bai D/o Dauram Satnami, aged about 55 years. All are R/o Hasaud, Up Tahsil-Hashoud, Tahsil- Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Loknath S/o Hetram, aged about 42 years, Cast Satnami, R/o Hashoud, Up Tahsil-Hasaud, Tahsil- Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir- 2- ^ Champa (C.G.) 2. S.R. Sidar S/o Not known, aged about 45 years, R/o Additional Tahsildar Hashoud, Tahsil Office Hasaud, Tahsil-Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ^3. State of Chhattisgarh Through-Collector Janjgir, Dista-ict Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT P^STION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA T -^l ;5 ^ ^ \<v w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. W.P. (2271 No. 908 of 2011 PETITIONERS Nirmal Sinha and others. Versus RESPONDENTS Loknath and others. Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, counsel forthe petltloners. Shri AJay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for theState. ORAL ORDER (17/02/2011) Following oral order of the Court was passed by PrashantKumar Mishra. J. Heard. (2) Both the Courts below have upheld plaintifTs entitlement to seek temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in the ptaintiffs possession over the suit land. (3) Plaintiffs claims to have purchased land bearing Khasra No. 698/33, area 0.010 hectare and Khasra No.698/34, area 0.010 hectare in the year 2CK)9,20)7 respectively and since thereafter he is in possession. According to the plaintiff when he started raising construction on the suit land the defendants started interfering in his possession and have lodged false criminal case againstthe labourers. (4) Case of the petitioners/defendants is that plaintiff is not raising construction on the land belonging to him but in fact he is raising construction on Government grassland bearing Khasra No. 698/1. (5) The trial Court vide its order dated 15/02/2010 has found that the ^faintiff has a prima facie case in his favour and shall suffer irreparable )f3 loss if temporary injunction is not granted. The appellate Court has discussed the entire material availabte on the record, particulariy the firet demarcation report dated 10 July, 2008 and the subsequent demarcation report dated 10/05Q010. After discussing the demarcaflon reports the learned first appellate Court has found that the subsequent demarcation report against the plaintiff suffers from irregularities at the time of conducting the demarcation on the spot and has therefore concluded that the trial Court has not committed any error in directing the defendants to not^fcg interfere in the plaintiffs possession. (6) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the plaintiff is raising construction on Government grassland which is avaitable for use of entire village and thus the plaintiff, being an encroacher, is not entitted for any temporary injunction. (7) The trial Court has exercised its discretionary jurisdtetion while allowing plaintiffs application for grant of temporary injunction. Though the trial Court's order is not detailed one but the appellate Court, while confirming the trial Court's order, has considered all ttie aspect of ttie matter in detail and this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not entiUed to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by two Courts below on the issue of existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. (8) At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if ultimately the suit is decreed, the clock cannot be set back as after raising construction the plaintifF will daim protection forJhS not to demolish the construction already raised. The apprehension raised by the leamed counsel is not well founded because any construction raised during \."pendency ^)f the suit, if ultimately found to have been made on ^..a, "<t. & :'^^SS3!h B "-:*,. '•<;•—,.''' .V ^ - ~^ Government land would be subject to the flnal decisk>n of the suit and the tnal Court shall be entitled to pass such ordere regarding the construction, if found illegally made on Govemment land. It is also to be seen that the trial Court, while granting temporary injunction, had directed in para No. 8.2 that theplaintlfFshall subm'rt evidence within two months from the date of order and if evidence is not produced the order of temporary injunctton shall loose its efficacy. Thus, impliedly there is an ordsr for early conclusion of the trial Court, ttierefore it is further directed that the trial Court shall do well to dispose of the suit as eariy as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. (9) With the above observation, the instant writ petition stands disposedof. „.„ Prashant Kuisar Mishra Judge i^