1 2025:CGHC:17385 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 340 of 2025  Aswan Yadav S/o Jagannath Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Manjhi, Village - Nakta, Tehsil - Arang, Sub Tehsil - Mandir Hasoud, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Plaintiff) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Gopal Chaturvedi S/o Roopchand Chaturvedi Aged About 30 Years Sarpanch Village Panchayat - Nakta, Block - Arang, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Defendants) 2. Murli Yadav Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Nakta, Tehsil - Arang, Up- Tehsil - Mandir Hasoud, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Maarkhande Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Village - Nakta, Tehsil - Arang, Up-Tehsil - Mandir Hasoud, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Abhay Yadav S/o Late Anuj Yadav Aged About 16 Years Through Her Guardian Grandfather Shri Jagannath Yadav, R/o Village - Nakta, Tehsil - Arang, Up-Tehsil - Mandir Hasoud, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Jai Yadav S/o Late Anuj Yadav Aged About 13 Years Through Her Guardian Grandfather Shri Jagannath Yadav, R/o Village - Nakta, Tehsil - Arang, Up-Tehsil - Mandir Hasoud, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16. 04.2025 1. The petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order passed by the learned 7th District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Appeal No. 22/2024 dated 06.03.2025, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1 of 2 CPC has been dismissed and the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 13.02.2024 has been affirmed. 2. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction pertaining to survey No. 209 admeasuring 3.56 hectares. It is pleaded that the survey number of the suit property 41/1 was renumbered as survey No. 209. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land for more than 100 years. It is also alleged that defendant No. 1 misused his power and had started excavation of soil from the suit land. It is also stated that complaints were made before the Superintendent of Police, Tahsildar and the Collector, but no action was taken. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC was also moved. 3. The learned trial Court vide order dated 13.02.2024 rejected the application for temporary injunction on the ground that survey No. 209 situated at Village Nakta, Sub-Tahsil Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur is Government land. The appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the suit property and he has been in possession for more than 100 years. He would further submit that without having the authority of law, defendant No. 1 started the excavation. He would also submit that prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the learned Courts below ought to have allowed the application for temporary injunction. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. Ms. Thakur would submit that survey No. 209 is Government land, therefore, the learned Courts below rejected the application moved under 3 the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. Perusal of the order passed by the learned Courts below would show that survey No. 209 admeasuring 3.56 hectares situated at Village Nakta, Sub- Tahsil, Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur is Government land. The petitioner/plaintiff could not adduce documentary evidence to prove that the suit land was ever recorded in his name, he had been in possession and was the title holder. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that survey No. 209 admeasuring 3.56 hectares situated at Village Nakta, Sub-Tahsil, Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur is Government land; the petitioner could not adduce evidence to prove his possession over the suit property; the three ingredients for temporary injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are not in favour of the petitioner; therefore, in my opinion, the learned Courts below rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant