Sukhdev Singh and Others vs Gram Panchayat and Others

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

CM No. 1484-CII of 2011

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CR No. 374 of 2011

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 21.5.2010 (Annexure P3), passed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar and order dated 19.2.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajnala vide which application for ad interim injunction order filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC filed by Petitioner-Plaintiff, was dismissed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order, passed by learned trial Court.

Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the present Petitioner-Plaintiff on the plea that the suit land is owned by Jumla Mustraka Malkan and the Plaintiff was owner in possession as co-sharer in Jumla Mustraka Malkan. On the other hand, the case of Defendant-Gram Panchayat is that the land is owned and possessed by Gram Panchayat and the same used to be given on lease on year to year basis and that even Plaintiffs have taken the land in dispute on lease from the Gram Panchayat by paying the lease money. Plea has also been taken that the petition u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act has also been filed by the Respondent-Gram Panchayat against the Petitioner seeking possession.

Hence, in view of the aforesaid position when petition u/s 7 of the Act has already been filed by the Gram Panchayat against the Plaintiffs for their ejectment, it cannot be said that the Respondents intend to forcibly eject the Petitioner from the land in dispute. Rather legal procedure has been initiated against the present Petitioner-Plaintiffs. Hence, learned Courts below have rightly come to conclusion that no prima facie case has been made out in favour of the Petitioner-Plaintiffs.

Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby in passing the impugned orders by Courts below warranting interference by this Court.

Thus, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

However, it is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed to have any bearing on the decision of this case on merit by learned trial Court.