Mehar Singh & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation, Rohtak & Ors.

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL Present : Mr. S. P. Chahar, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * * * * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.27828-CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. Main Case Plaintiffs Mehar Singh etc. having failed to secure temporary injunction from both the Courts below have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail orders of the Courts below. Plaintiffs alleged that the suit plot No.182 was allotted to Pana Fairan of villageBaliyana in partition suit decided by Civil Court on

22.10.1977 and accordingly Pana Fairan is owner in possession of the suit plot. The said Pana has constructed boundary wall of the plot and got done earth work and filled foundation for construction of Mandir Shivala, but the defendants threatened to dispossess the Pana from the suit plot forcibly and CR NO.6605 OF 2012 (O&M) - 2 - illegally without any right to do so. Plaintiffs, who are among the proprietors of the Pana, accordingly sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from doing so. Temporary injunction to the same effect during the pendency of the suit was claimed by the plaintiffs by moving separate application. Contesting defendants inter alia pleaded that Gram Panchayat defendant No.1 is owner in possession of the suit plot and is constructing community centre there with government funds. Learned trial Court vide order dated 14.12.2011 Annexure P-1 dismissed the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction.

Appeal against the said order preferred by plaintiffs has been dismissed by lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 18.09.2012. Feeling still aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this revision petition to challenge aforesaid orders of the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioners contended that in partition suit, the suit plot was reserved for construction of Shivala Mandir and therefore, petitioners are entitled to temporary injunction prayed for. I have carefully considered the matter. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned that now respondent No.1 Municipal Corporation, Rohtak is said to be successor-in-interest of Gram Panchayat, Baliyana original defendant No.1. In plaint Annexure P-2, the plaintiffs have nowhere pleaded that in partition suit, the suit plot was reserved for construction of Shivala CR NO.6605 OF 2012 (O&M) - 3 - Mandir only although pleaded that some earth work etc. had been done for construction of Shivala Mandir.

However, it is not the case of the plaintiffs that the suit land could be used only for Shivala Mandir and for no other purpose. Moreover if Pana Fairan was owner in possession of the suit land as per partition decree, even then the suit land prima facie vested in Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. Consequently in this view of the matter also, Gram Panchayat- defendant No.1 being owner in possession of the suit land has right to utilize the same for construction of community centre which would also be used for common purpose of the concerned villagers. For this reason also, the plaintiffs cannot be granted temporary injunction. It is thus manifest that plaintiffs have miserably failed to make out necessary ingredients for grant of temporary injunction. Consequently temporary injunction has been rightly declined to the plaintiffs by the Courts below. Impugned orders of the courts below do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is devoid of substance and is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the suit. 7th November, 2012 ‘raj’ (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE