Smt. Santosh And 2 Others vs Sushil Kumar And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 22436 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:166934
 
Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7248 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Santosh And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- Sushil Kumar And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Prasad Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Ehtesham Akhtar
 

 
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

Heard Sri S.P. Mishra, leaned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Syed Faheem Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the caveator-defendant/respondent no.1.

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 2.5.2023, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Amroha (wrongly mentioned as Court no.3 in the prayer clause). A further relief has been sought not to interfere in the peaceful possession and not to make any construction over the land in dispute.

It appears that a suit being Original Suit No. 275 of 2021 was filed by the plaintiff-petitioners for declaration of sale deed dated 15.4.2021 as void and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the agricultural land. It appears that by the order dated 29.9.2022, the trial court has granted an order of temporary injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo. The order dated 29.9.2022 was challenged by the defendant-respondents in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2023, which was allowed by means of the impugned order dated 2.5.2023.

While allowing the appeal, the appellate court has observed that the plaintiffs and the defendants are co-tenure holders of the same agricultural plot and, therefore, no injunction can be issued in respect of the said plot. Thereafter, the appellate court proceeded to set aside the order of temporary injunction dated 29.9.2022 passed by the trial court and allowed the appeal.

A perusal of the order of the appellate court reveals that case of Narayan Dass Agarwal and others Vs. Sita Ram and others, reported in 2015 (2) ARC 106 has been relied upon, in which coordinate Bench of this Court relying upon judgment of the Supreme Court held that no injunction whether permanent or temporary can be granted by the Civil Court in respect of agricultural land against the recorded tenure holder in favour of a person who is not recorded tenure holder, the only exception being that a recorded tenure holder can be granted injunction against non-recorded tenure holders.

Under the circumstances, no interference is called for and this petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Order Date :- 18.8.2023

sfa/

(Jayant Banerji, J)