g ENT THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P. fU/A. 227) N0. (S 4^5 /2009 SINGLE PETITIONERS PLAINTIFFS .^^ €y^/ <s. 1] Veena Verma, W/o. Surendra Kumar Verma, aged about 50 years, 2] ^ Pallav Vemia, S/o. Surendra Kumar Venna, aged about 29 years 3] ^-Utkarsh Venna, S/o. Surendra Kiimar Verma, aged about 28 years All above R/o. Imlipara, Nagar Ambikapur, Police Station & Tahsil Ambikapur, DistrictSurguja (CG) RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS 1] 2] l^" ^ VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through: Collector, Surguja Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) Mimicipal Corporadon Ambikapur, through: Commissioner, Mimicipal Corporation Ambikapur,Surguja (CG) ^h 2] 3] 3] Surendra Kumar Verma, S/o. Awadh Kishore Prasad Verma, aged about 58 years, R/o. Imlipara, Nagar Ambikapur, Police Station & Tahsil Ambikapiir, District Surguja (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF TNDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER (S): As stated above in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT (S}; As stated above in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE ORDERfS) AGAINST, WHICH THE PETmON IS MADE SUBJECT MATTER IN BRIEF ' That, the petitioners, by way of instant writ petition, are challenging the legality, validity and propriety ofthe order dated aini ^ -ni3^r]:T !"li[:i XI-HC—78 ^^ ^'- 311^1 ^a R;-I "?T?TT 5?n^?lsn*( ^*.< ^s^ •^rai^ra; ^Tfty'i'i, feiwy y • P. Ci-i-^) ^o. 6^2-2^ *n*(yii «»*M^> Sfl^rtR^ (•jtrfys^) TCTIW ^ifpt sn^r S.B. Hon'bie Shri viusUce N.K. A. Shri Manoj Paranjape, coun Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. Govt. sel for the petitioners. [^dvocate for the State/respondent No.1 Heard on admission. Feeling aggrieved by the o| P-1), the instant petition has been ( Facts briefly stated as under The petitioners/plaintifls fil declaratipn of title, damages and land. One of the reiief sought by 0,09 acre out of 1.19 acre land bea that the said land was aliotted to thi the piaintiffe' title over the said suit] land area 1.19 acre of Khasra Corporation and the petitioners i! which was demoSlshed by them. said land was encroached upon b^ the plaintiffs or plaintiffs raised the construction over that land on tt During pendency of suit, th !»ii<<ici<il-i'WRS ^fft^ <R|*SK ^SffOTSi!??! arwal der dated 04-09-2SX)9 (Annexure ireferred. sd a civil suit seeking relief of lermanent injunction over the suit fte plaintifls was possession over -ing Khasra No.972 on the ground >m, claiming title over it. The defendant/iyiunicipat Cjirporation appeared and denied and and submitted that the entire No.972 beiongs to Municjpal ^galiy raised construction over it TIUS, the dispute was whether the fe strength oftheir own title. i|e petitioners filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of V\e C.P.C. for appointment of ffWii'BfftKiriWI''" auw." ^^SSSK^, ^;?:"^~"~<^%,. ,)^'^%> "^.,, g'g ,.,^ ^ a>i:!;"3a% S 3^-qi<4i<-t'<!, ^tRw!<o, fani«<y W.^.C-^-^ ^-6^>^ ^fVK aaigwR'fe ^^*B«S •L ^ ^pfeih^swff^ fe'zt'dwgR ^^fri<iisSa Commissioner for demarcation c(F the properiy. The same was dismissed by the TrialCourt hold be appointed to collect evidence. Learned counsel for the pe|tioners woufd submit that there is a dispute with regard to demarcat|on 6f suit property and, therefore, the Commissioner ought to have identity of the property. ! have heard learned couns the impugned order and aiso copy A bear perusaf of pieading the dispute between the parties hg that the Commissforier cannot beenappointed to ascertain tte for the petitioners and perused ^f piaint (Annexure P-2). ^ of the parties woutd revea! that iretates to the question whether disputed property belongs to the ^taintiffs or Municipal Corporation. It is not a case where the locatj|>n, identity of the property is in dispute or there is any boundary <jispute. In such a matter, parties have to prove their case on the st^ength of the evidence which they may adduce during trial and, ther^ the Trial Court has not committed injustice to the petitioner warrantinj interference under Articte 227 of the Constitution of India. it is weli settled principje of law that this Court, in exerciseof its supervisory juri^dictionunderArticle227ofthe fore, in the opinion of thte Court, any itlegality ieading to manifest ^fc i ^^tiJiVJOIWfW^ NIHCTI «t*<l<l> 3r5^^ii<4lcl'!-t,yA-y'is.'fawi'My. ^fC^>}^-^)-^l ~~^1 ^ sn^r 'Rq> sn^i w Vs.-n* ^iii sn^t siiii°n Kvr ^iiw^ftasii^i CQnstitution of India, shouid r^frain from interfering with the order passed by the Court belc^ perversity, illegality, irregularity iarge on the face of the record, v The petition has no meri dismissed on admission stage. 4il<4ii-f4)-< tll^fi!"'^ fsc6 <rn<{K ^affiiiiCT^r [w except in such eases where or jurisdictional error is writ 1/hich is not in the present case. ^ and the same is accordingly No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge ~ UteMCia"'-"*"* in_ 1 ^^' ri-a-iB'.<j*^»w..''*R^f"'iKi