Malkeet Singh and Others vs Prem Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 7937-CII of 2012

Allowed as prayed for.

CM No. 7938-CII of 2012

The application is allowed and Annexures P-1 to P-4 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Main Case

Plaintiffs Malkeet Singh etc. having failed to secure temporary injunction in both the courts below, have filed this revision petition u/s 115 of the CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution assailing orders of both the courts below declining temporary injunction to the plaintiffs/petitioners. Plaintiffs alleged that suit land measuring 36 Kanals 12 Marlas situated in village Miani and suit land measuring 40 Kanals situated in village Goidwal Sahib was allotted by Central Government to plaintiffs'' father who kept on paying rent thereof regularly to the Government. After death of plaintiff''s father, plaintiffs are now in possession of the suit land. However, defendants threatened to auction the suit land, necessitating the filing of suit for permanent injunction. Plaintiffs sought temporary during pendency of the suit restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land forcibly and from auctioning the same and from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs thereon.

Defendants/respondents No. 1 and 2 pleaded that jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred by Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as the suit land is owned by Gram Panchayat of village Goindwal Sahib. It was also pleaded that the suit is bad for non-joinder of said Gram Panchayat, which is necessary party to the suit being owner of the suit land. Defendant No. 1 is Member Panchayat whereas defendant No. 2 is Lamberdar but defendants No. 1 and 2 have no concern with the suit land. Averments of the plaintiffs that they are allottees of the suit land or that they are in possession thereof have been denied. It was pleaded that suit land is meant for benefit of the village. It was also pleaded that suit land had already been auctioned on 27.06.2009 for lease for one year in favour to highest bidder Gurdev Singh. It was pleaded that plaintiffs never came in possession of the suit land and if their possession is proved, the same is illegal.

Defendants/respondents No. 3 to 5 also broadly took the same stand.

Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran vide order dated 29.04.2010 dismissed the plaintiffs'' application for temporary injunction. Appeal against the said order preferred by plaintiffs stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran vide judgment dated 01.02.2012. Both these orders of the courts below are under challenge in this revision petition.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that petitioners are in possession of the suit land and are, therefore, entitled to protect their possession and they cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law.

The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Plaintiffs have not placed on record anything to depict that the suit land was allotted to them by Central Government or any other authority. On the other hand, photostat copy of the receipt placed by them on record reveals that the suit land was given to the plaintiffs for one year only in 1978-79. Moreover, Gram Panchayat is necessary party to the suit as Gram Panchayat is recorded to be owner of the suit land. However, plaintiffs very cleverly have not impleaded the Gram Panchayat as party to the suit. In spite of specific objection taken by defendants, Gram Panchayat has not been impleaded as party to the suit. In the absence of Gram Panchayat, which is owner of the suit land, temporary injunction asked for by the plaintiffs cannot be granted.

Suit land had also been auctioned for lease for one year on 27.06.2009 i.e. prior to the filing of the suit. Gram Panchayat is entitled to give the suit land on lease being owner thereof. Even if the plaintiffs are in unauthorized possession of the suit land, they cannot be granted indulgence by the Courts to perpetuate their wrong. Suit land is meant for common purposes of the villagers. Grant of temporary injunction to the plaintiffs would be detrimental to public interest. A person in unauthorized possession of public property as trespasser does not deserve discretionary relief of temporary injunction. In this view, I am supported by judgment of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal versus Mohan Singh 1995 (3) PLR 564.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Courts below have rightly declined temporary injunction to the plaintiffs. Discretion exercised by the courts below in declining temporary injunction to the plaintiffs does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly the instant revision petition is dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit.