Ranveer and Another vs Mange and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiffs, having failed to secure temporary injunction against the respondents, have approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Plaintiffs alleged that they are joint owners in actual physical continuous uninterrupted exclusive possession of suit land measuring 09 biswas pukhta comprising of khasra No. 1196, khewats No. 248 and 249. Consolidation proceedings are still going on regarding land of said khewat nos. 248 and 249, comprising of total area of 1152 bighas 14 biswas 10 biswanis under the Scheme. Defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land forcibly. Accordingly, plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction and during pendency of the suit, claimed temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land.

Defendants 5 and 6 i.e. Tehsildar Consolidation and State of Haryana admitted that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land and consolidation proceedings are going on.

Private defendants No. 1 to 4 contested the suit and denied the plaintiffs'' averments. It was pleaded that defendants No. 1 to 4 are absolute owners in possession of the suit land along with other land measuring 03 kanals 10 marlas since the time of their ancestors. There was previously joint land of plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 4, but the same was already partitioned amicably. Plaintiffs'' share came to be 03 kanals 07 marlas and defendants'' share came to about 2100 sq. yds. Under the garb of the suit, the plaintiffs want to grab excess area. Assistant Consolidation Officer (ACO), vide order dated 16.11.2005, effected partition and appeal against the said order by one Jai Bhagwan has been dismissed by this Court as withdrawn on 28.08.2008. It was pleaded that Ladi No. 846 has fallen to the share of plaintiffs, whereas Ladi No. 871 has fallen to the share of defendants No. 1 to 4.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, vide order dated 14.11.2011 (Annexure P-1), dismissed the plaintiffs'' application for temporary injunction. Appeal against the said order preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide impugned judgment dated 06.02.2012 (Annexure P-2). Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying heavily on copy of jamabandi for the year 1976-77 (Annexure P-6), contended that plaintiffs'' predecessors were in possession of the suit land and now, plaintiffs are in possession thereof. The contention cannot be accepted. Much water has flown down the Ganges during the last 35 years since jamabandi for the year 1976-77 relied on by the plaintiffs till filing of the suit by them on 06.12.2011. The plaintiffs have not relied on latest revenue record in support of their version. On the other hand, contesting defendants have produced material on record to depict that presently they are prima facie in possession of suit land.

Both the courts below have analysed the material on record in correct perspective and have arrived at concurrent conclusion that plaintiffs have failed to make out a case for grant of temporary injunction. It was specifically observed by the trial court that no latest or recent document has been placed on record by the plaintiffs to establish their possession. In spite thereof, no document since after jamabandi for the year 1976-77 has been placed on record to depict prima facie possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.

Counsel for the petitioners vehemently relied on written statement and reply filed by official defendants No. 5 and 6 admitting the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. However, the said admission can have no value against the rights of defendants No. 1 to 4. On the other hand, plaintiffs have failed to bring on record any material to depict that prima facie they are presently in possession of the suit land. On the contrary, consolidation authorities have allotted Ladi No. 846 to the plaintiffs and Ladi No. 871 including the suit land to defendants No. 1 to 4.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Plaintiffs have failed to make out a case for grant of temporary injunction. Courts below have rightly refused to grant temporary injunction to the plaintiffs/petitioners. Impugned orders of the courts below do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is found to be meritless and is, therefore, dismissed.