Gulama vs Avtar Singh and others

L.N. Mittal, J.

C. M. No. 8123-C-II of 2012 :

Allowed as prayed for. C. M. No. 8124-C-II of 2012 :

Application is allowed and Annexures P-1 to P-5 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Main Case :

Plaintiff Gulama, having substantially failed in securing temporary injunction in both the courts below, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing orders of the courts below.

Plaintiff alleged that he is Proprietor in the village and is co-sharer in common land i.e. shamlat deh of the village. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the suit land measuring 14 kanals 11 marlas comprising of four khasra nos. i.e. 47//1, 45//13/2, 20/2 and 21. The plaintiff claimed permanent injunction and also temporary injunction during pendency of the suit restraining the defendants from interfering in plaintiff''s possession over the suit land by cutting and removing standing crops therefrom and standing and fallen eucalyptus trees.

Defendants resisted the suit and the application for temporary injunction. It was alleged that defendant no. 1 Avtar Singh, father of defendant no. 3, father of defendants no. 4 to 6 and Hira Singh constructed Gurudwara in the year 1957 on agricultural land allotted to them on migration from Pakistan. They had become Proprietors in shamlat deh also. Avtar Singh etc. donated land of two disputed khasra nos. i.e. 20/2 and 21 to Gurudwara and handed over its possession to Gurudwara - defendant no. 7, which through its Manager Avtar Singh (defendant no. 1), is in possession of the said land out of the suit land. Eucalyptus trees were also planted therein by defendant no. 7 through defendant no. 1. Plaintiff gave affidavit dated 25.11.1994, when dispute arose regarding wrong entries in revenue record. Thereupon, entries in revenue record were corrected on 28.03.1995 and since then, possession of defendant no. 7 has been recorded. Plaintiff never remained in possession of the aforesaid land. Defendant no. 7 is owner as well as in possession thereof. As regards khasra no. 13/2, defendant no. 5 claimed to be in possession thereof as Proprietor and co-sharer in shamlat deh. Possession of plaintiff thereon was also denied. As regards land of khasra no. 47//1, defendants no. 1 to 5 claimed to be in possession thereof. Possession of plaintiff over the entire suit land was controverted.

Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide impugned order dated 15.12.2010 (Annexure P-4), partly allowed the plaintiff''s application for temporary injunction regarding land of khasra no. 13/2 and dismissed the plaintiff''s application for temporary injunction regarding the remaining suit land. Appeal against the said order, preferred by the plaintiff, has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide impugned judgment dated 03.03.2012 (Annexure P-5). Both these orders Annexures P-4 and P-5 of the courts below are under challenge in this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Revenue entries in khasra girdawaris as well as in jamabandis, since the year 1994-95 till date, depict possession of defendant no. 7 Gurudwara over land of khasra nos. 20/2 and 21. Consequently, prima facie plaintiff is not in possession thereof and has been rightly declined temporary injunction for the same. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that khasra girdawari entry was corrected in favour of defendant no. 7 in Rabi 1995 crop, without any notice to the plaintiff and on the basis of his alleged affidavit dated 16.08.1995, as mentioned in khasra girdawari, whereas the alleged correction was made on 28.03.1995 i.e. before the date of alleged affidavit. The contention, apparently attractive, cannot be accepted. Petitioner filed suit on 28.09.2000 i.e. 151/2 years after entries in revenue record i.e. khasra girdawaris as well as jamabandis were consistently made in favour of defendant no. 7 during the said long period of more than 15 years. Contention of counsel for the petitioner, that during this long period, petitioner was unaware of the entries in jamabandis and khasra girdawaris for more than 151/2 years, cannot be accepted at this stage because if the plaintiff-petitioner had continued in possession of the said land, he would not have been unaware of the said revenue entries for long period of 151/2 years. Consistent revenue entries during the said long period including entries in jamabandis, which carry presumption of correctness, are sufficient to depict prima facie that defendant no. 7 and not plaintiff is in possession of the said land.

As regards land of khasra no. 47//1, there is no revenue entry depicting the possession of plaintiff thereon. Consequently, there is no prima facie material to depict that plaintiff ever remained in possession of the said land.

For the reasons aforesaid, it is apparent that temporary injunction for land of khasra nos. 47//1 and 45//20/2 and 21 has been rightly declined by the courts below because prima facie, plaintiff is not shown to be in possession thereof. Revenue entries regarding khasra no. 45//13/2 depicted prima facie possession of plaintiff thereon and he has been granted temporary injunction in respect thereof. In view of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders of the courts below so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. However, nothing stated hereinbefore shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit.