Nishan Singh vs Dilbagh Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.

C. M. No. 20694-C-II of 2012 :

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Case :

Challenge in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff is to order dated 03.08.2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Zira and to order dated 17.07.2012 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, thereby dismissing application of plaintiff-petitioner for temporary injunction. Case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that he is in possession of the suit land measuring 21 kanals 06 marlas for the last about 30 years. The suit land belonged to Central Government. Out of it, land measuring 06 kanals 06 marlas has been allotted to the plaintiff by way of sale and mutation thereof has also been sanctioned. The plaintiff continues to be in possession of the remaining land also, but defendants, without any right, title or interest in the suit land, threatened to dispossess the plaintiff therefrom forcibly and illegally. Plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from doing so and also claimed temporary injunction to the same effect during pendency of the suit.

The defendants admitted that 06 kanals 06 marlas land, out of the suit land, has been allotted to the plaintiff and he is in possession thereof. Other averments of the plaintiff were controverted. It was denied that plaintiff was in possession of the suit land for the last about 30 years. It was pleaded that plaintiff has fabricated the copy of jamabandi in collusion with Patwari. Defendants are in possession of the remaining suit land.

Learned trial court, vide impugned order Annexure P-1, dismissed the plaintiff''s application for temporary injunction. Appeal against the said order, preferred by the plaintiff, has been dismissed by the lower appellate court, vide order Annexure P-2. Feeling still dissatisfied, plaintiff has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition.

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

Counsel for the petitioner contended that report of Revenue Officer regarding tampering of revenue record by the plaintiff, depicting his possession over the entire suit land, has been procured by the defendants because according to the said report, the revenue record has since been stolen.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but the same does not help the plaintiff-petitioner. There is categorical report by the Revenue Officer that revenue record, depicting possession of plaintiff-petitioner over the remaining suit land, has been tampered with. The said report is prima facie sufficient to discard the claim of the plaintiff regarding his possession over the said part of the suit land. Even otherwise, both the courts below have exercised their discretion in matter of temporary injunction by recording reasons for the same. The said discretion is not shown to be illegal or perverse or suffering from jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, the land admittedly belonged to Central Government. The plaintiff does not claim to be in possession thereof as tenant or licensee. His alleged possession thereon is, therefore, unauthorized or illegal. In view thereof also, the plaintiff is not entitled to temporary injunction regarding public land. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed herein before shall be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the suit.