Gram Panchayat vs Singh Ram and Others

Harphul Singh Brar, J.—Plaintiff, Singh Ram, who is respondent No. 1 in this petition (hereinafter called ''the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 5, Gram Panchayat, petitioner before me (hereinafter called ''the petitioner'') and defendants No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 who are respondents No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 in this petition (hereinafter called ''the defendants'') from dispossessing him from the land measuring 26 kanals and 4 marlas described in the heading of the suit. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for restraining the defendants and the petitioner during the pendency of the suit was also filed.

The plea taken by the plaintiff in his plaint was that the suit land was transferred in the name of Gram Panchayat vide mutation No. 339. The plaintiff was inducted as a tenant by the petitioner in the suit land in the year 1992 on payment of chakota of Rs. 100/- per year. The plaintiff was in possession of the land but the defendants in league with the petitioner were threatening to dispossess him from the suit land. Defendants in their written statement denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. The suit land, according to them, was given on the patta for a fixed term of one year and after completion of one year the land was given on patta through an open auction. They further reiterated in their written statement that vide resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 4.5.1995, the land in question was auctioned on 27.5.1995. In the auction both the plaintiff and the defendants had participated. The land in question was allotted to the defendants as they were the highest bidders. It is then specifically stated in their written statement that the defendants were handed over the possession of the land. It was denied that the plaintiff was a tenant under the Gram Panchayat. Thus, the prayer of the plaintiff for temporary injunction was opposed by the defendants before the trial Court.

In a separate written statement filed by the petitioner before the trial Court, similar stand as of the defendants was taken.

The plaintiff had produced on recorded a copy of Jamabandi for the year 1989-90, copies of khasra girdawaris entries from the years 1992 to 1995. On the other hand, the defendants had produced on record the photostat copy of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat dated 4.5.1995, photostat copy of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 27.5.1995 and the record of auction held on 27.5.95 and receipt dated 27.5.95 in favour of the defendants. Some other receipts of auction money deposited by the other bidders were also produced on record.

The trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, dismissed the application, vide its order dated 18.11.95, for temporary injunction of the plaintiff by holding that there was nothing on the record to show that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and he had no prima facie case at all in his favour nor the balance of convenience was in his favour and no irreparable loss would be suffered by the plaintiff in case interim injunction prayed by him was refused.

The Additional District Judge, Ambala vide his order dated 16.4.1996 set aside the order dated 18.11.95 of the learned trial Court and restrained the defendants and the petitioner from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land forcibly and except in due course of law.

This revision petition was filed against the order dated 16.4.1996 of the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala in which a prayer was made to set aside the order dated 16.4.1996 and to restore the order of the trial Court.

Notice of motion was given in the revision petition to the plaintiff only and status quo regarding possession was ordered by this Court. This is how this revision petition has come up for hearing before me.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully.

The land in question was given on lease from year to year by the petitioner through an open auction to the highest bidder. As the period of lease of the plaintiff had come to an end and the land in question was auctioned on 27.5.1995 the same was leased out to the defendants. The plaintiff also participated in this auction. The plaintiff suppressed this fact before the trial Court. He deliberately did not plead that he had participated in the auction which was held on 27.5.95 by the Gram Panchayat. After the auction, the suit land was transferred in favour of the defendants being the highest bidders. After the defendants had paid auction amount to the Gram Panchayat, they were put in possession of the land in question and they had also sown the crops in the land. The trial Court had categorically held that there was nothing on record to show that the plaintiff was still in possession of the suit land. Even otherwise also, the facts show that after the participation of the plaintiff in the auction the land was given on lease to the highest bidder, the petitioner became an authorized occupant since the date the land was given on lease to the defendants.

Though the learned trial Court has held after going through the record of the case that the plaintiff is unable to show his possession over the land in question from the evidence on the record, but even if the plaintiff is held to be in unlawful possession against a right lawful owner, could an injunction be granted to him against the rightful owner.

It has been held by the Supreme Court in a catena of authorities that the party is not entitled to an order of injunction as a matter of course. Grant of injunction is within the discretion of the court and such discretion is to be exercised in favour of the plaintiff only if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that unless the defendant is restrained by an order of injunction, an irreparable loss or damage will be caused to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. Before any such order is passed, the Court must be satisfied that a strong prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff including on the question of maintainability of the suit and the balance of convenience is in his favour and refusal of injunction would cause irreparable injury to him. Judicial proceedings cannot be used to protect or to perpetuate a wrong committed by a person who approaches the Court. The Court would be circumspect before granting the injunction and look to the conduct of the party, the probable injury to either party and whether the plaintiff could be adequately compensated if injunction is refused. The existence of prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of his property or the right is a condition for the grant of temporary injunction. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that non-interference by the Court would result in irreparable injury to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession.

It is again a settled law by the Supreme Court that no injunction could be granted against the true owner at the instance of persons in unlawful possession. It has again been held not once by the Supreme Court-that public interest is one of the material and relevant considerations in either exercising or refusing to grant ad interim injunction.

In the case in hand, it is undisputed that the land belonging to the petitioner-Gram Panchayat is leased out from year to year in open auction and is given on lease to the highest bidder. Defendants were the highest bidders in this case and the plaintiff also participated in the auction but he was not successful in getting the lease of the land. He has got no right to remain in unlawful possession of the land even if for argument''s sake he has not left the possession of the land in question. In these circumstances, the trial Court had rightly held that the plaintiff had no prima facie case at all in his favour, neither the balance of convenience was in his favour nor any irreparable loss or injury was going to be suffered by the plaintiff. Learned lower appellate Court has ignored the basic principles of granting an injunction to a party who is in unauthorized possession of the land by setting aside the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court dated 18.11.95.

The trial Court has even held in para No. 9 of its order that the contention of the plaintiff that he was a tenant under the Gram Panchayat was not borne out from the record and there was nothing on record to show that the plaintiff was still in possession of the suit land. The trial Court had rather held that the plaintiff had suppressed the fact from the trial Court deliberately as he did not disclose that he had participated in the auction which was held by the Gram Panchayat and lost when on the other hand the defendants had produced on record the proceedings of auction which were conducted by the Gram Panchayat.

From the discussion made above, I do not find any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff for granting him temporary injunction Balance of convenience is also not in favour of the plaintiff. He has got no right or interest in the land in dispute and no irreparable loss or injury shall be caused to the plaintiff if injunction is refused to him.

Resultantly this revision petition is accepted and order dated 16.4.1996 of the first appellate Court is set aside and the order of the trial Court dated 18.11.1995 is restored and the temporary injunction asked for by the plaintiff is refused.