Dismissed

Dilip Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jan 2022WP227/7/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ under Article 227 challenging the rejection of an order granting a temporary injunction based on adverse possession. The High Court found no merit to interfere as the lower courts properly exercised discretion.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no merits found for interference.

Dilip Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

W.P.(227) No. 7 of 2022

¶5

Dilip Kumar S/o Pyare Lal Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Mujaalgondi, Tehsil - Gurur, District- Balod Chhattisgarh, Present AddressVillage Charama, Tehsil Charama, District Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶6

-----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Gurur, District- Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3. Sarpanch/secretary Gram Panchayat - Pond, Tehsil Gurur, District - Balod Chhattisgarh. --Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner: Smt Aditi Singhvi Agarawal, Advocate. For Respondents/State: Ms. Reena Singh, PL

¶12

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari J Order On Board

¶13

06.01.2022

¶14

This Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the District Judge, Balod (CG) in Misc. Civil Appeal No.04/2021 wherein, the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC against the rejection of application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC has been rejected.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner has preferred a suit against the Respondents claiming adverse possession on the land bearing Khasra Nos.46, 47, 48 and 49 measuring area 0.84 0.13, 0.03 and 0.04 hectares respectively situated at village Mujalgondi, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod. The said land was ancestral property and the Petitioner cultivates the crop of paddy and pulses on the said land. Respondent No.3 has started digging the land in dispute for constructing a pond under the Employment

¶16

¶17

Guarantee Scheme, therefore, the suit has been filed for declaration and injunction on the basis of adverse possession. The Petitioner has also preferred an application for temporary injunction, which was dismissed and thereafter the Petitioner has preferred Misc. Appeal, which has also been rejected by the impugned order. Hence this Petition.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence as the balance of convenience is in favour of the Petitioner and wrongly decided the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, therefore, the said application may be allowed.

¶19

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed therewith minutely.

¶20

After considering the impugned orders, this Court has come to the conclusion that the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence regarding the exercise of discretion of issuance of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC and after considering the settled principles relating to prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss as the digging of the land in Khasra No.46 for constructing a pond after the required sanction and the fact that the Plaintiff has not filed any demarcation report that the disputed land is under his ownership, it was observed in the impugned order that the construction work is being done in the separate land and the field of the Petitioner is different.

¶21

In view of above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said orders. Accordingly, the Petition being devoid of any merits, is accordingly dismissed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE

¶24

Priya

Dilip Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar Jain Vs Mangatram Agrawal

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Kanhaiya

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Atul Dubey

2 Dudes Mens Wear, Proprietor Vs Smt. Sunita Goyal

Jeevan Lal Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jinesh Kumar Jain Vs Madhav Das Mohta