Sobha vs Gram Panchayat village Poharka

S.S. Kang, J.—This revision petition under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is directed against the impugned order dated June 12, 1984, of the learned District Judge, Sirsa, whereby he had dismissed the petitioner''s appeal against the judgment dated February 2, 1984, of the learned Subordinate Judge IInd Class, Sirsa, declining his application for temporary injunction against the defendantrespondent Gram Panchayat of Village Poharka.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Sobha, petitioner, filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant Gram Panchayat from interfering with his possession over 56 Kanals of land. He claimed to be a tenant of this land for the last many years. He filed an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, for grant of temporary injunction against the defendant. In support of his case, he produced the Jamabandis for the years 197879, which showed that Sobha, petitioner, was in possession of the land, in dispute. He also produced a copy of the Khasra Girdawari, showing that he was in possession of the land in Rabi 1983.

On the other hand, the Gram Panchayat produced a copy of the proceedings recorded on May 11, 1983 indicating that the land had been leased out to Baldev Singh. Earlier also, in 198182, the land was let out to Udmi for a sum of Rs 1630/ for one year. However, the Gram Panchayat did not produce any evidence to show that Udmi or Baldev Singh had entered into an agreement and were in actual possession of the suit land. The learned trial Judge rejected the application for temporary injunction. The appeal filed by the petitioner against that order was rejected by the learned District Judge.

It is well recognised and has indeed been reiterated recently by a Division Bench of this Court in Sadhu Ram v. Gram Panchayat Pastana, 1984 PLJ 217 : 1984(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 483 : 1984 R.R.R. 23, that when relief for injunction is claimed against forcible dispossession of property, the established principle of law is that the party in possession for a sufficient long time is entitled to retain it unless dispossessed in due course of law. The Courts below have not applied this principle while deciding the application for temporary injunction. The entries in the Jamabandis and the latest Khasra Girdawaris prima facie establish that the petitioner was in possession of the land, in dispute. In the absence of any other circumstance, he was entitled to retain his possession and for that to seek the assistance of the Court. The observations in Sham Singh v. Prem Chand and others, 1979 PLJ 537, to the effect that even if the plaintiff was able to show that he was in possession of the land, no ad interim injunction would be granted to him, as the defendants had better title than him, were held to be not in consonance with the law and overruled.

For the foregoing reasons, I allow this Revision Petition and set aside the orders of the learned trial Judge and the lower Appellate Court refusing temporary injunction. The respondent is restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner during the pendency of the suit except in accordance with law. However, this shall be subject to his paying in the trial Court a sum of Rs. 1630/ per year, with effect from 198182 onwards. Petitioner is granted two months'' time to deposit the arrears. In future the petitioner shall continue paying the aforesaid amount for use and occupation of the land, in dispute, by June 31, every year. The respondentGram Panchayat shall be at liberty to withdraw the deposited amount. In case the petitioner fails to deposit this amount, the stay order shall stand vacated.