Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash And Others vs Gram Panchayat And Others on 29 April, 2023
CR No.1919 of 2021 -1- 2023:PHHC:061076
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
105 CR No.1919 of 2021 (O&M)
Reserved on : 17.04.2023
Date of Decision : 29.04.2023
Om Parkash and Others ....Petitioners
VERSUS
Gram Panchayat, Village Nahri and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the
order dated 18.08.2021 passed by the First Appellate Court and order dated
02.08.2016 passed by the Trial Court whereby the application filed by the
plaintiff-petitioners under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-
respondents from interfering in their peaceful possession over a residential
house as detailed in the plaint and further for restraining the defendant-
respondents from dispossessing the plaintiff-petitioners illegally and
forcibly. Along with the suit an application for interim injunction was filed.
The plaintiff-petitioners claimed themselves to be the permanent residents of
village Nahri, Teshil and District Sonepat and owners in possession of
residential house-cum-plot measuring 305 square yards situated within the
JITENDER KUMAR
2023.04.29 11:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
CR No.1919 of 2021 -2- 2023:PHHC:061076
Lal Dora of village Nahri. It was further averred that the father of the
plaintiff-petitioners during his lifetime raised construction of pacca
boundaries upto the height of about 10 feet and two rooms and one tin shed
for tethering of cattle and was using the same for domestic and practical
purposes. It was further averred that the plaintiff-petitioners were residing in
the said house since the time of their birth and that the electricity connection
was also installed at the house for the last 10 years. It was further the case of
the plaintiff-petitioners that the defendant-respondents were threatening to
demolish the house of the plaintiff-petitioners and to dispossess them
illegally and forcibly. On notice, a written statement was filed raising
various preliminary objections. On merits it was denied that the plaintiff-
petitioners were owners in possession of residential house measuring 305
square yards. It was further denied that father of the plaintiff-petitioners was
in settled possession of the suit property as alleged. Regarding the electricity
meter, it was averred that the plaintiff-petitioners removed the old meter
No.2469 and 2626 (new) from their residential house situated in abadi of
village Nahri and installed the same in the disputed land only in order to
create evidence in the present case. The plaintiff-petitioners in order to
establish their possession placed on record the photocopy of the site plan,
electricity bills and photographs. The Trial Court vide order dated
02.08.2016 dismissed the application for interim injunction. Aggrieved by
the same, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-petitioners which appeal
was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 18.08.2021. Hence, the
present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners would contend that
the plaintiff-petitioners have been in continuous possession of the suit
JITENDER KUMAR
2023.04.29 11:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
CR No.1919 of 2021 -3- 2023:PHHC:061076
property and hence, during the pendency of the suit, interim injunction ought
to have been granted in their favour.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners.
5. In the present case there is no prima facie evidence which
would reveal that the plaintiff-petitioners were in possession of the suit
property. The reliance by counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners on the
photographs to show the possession of the plaintiff-petitioners is wholly
misplaced as photographs can never be proof of possession. It has been
noticed in the order passed by the First Appellate Court that though in the
plaint it has been averred that the plaintiff-petitioners have a residential
house in the village, however, it was fairly conceded by the plaintiff-
petitioners that they occupy another old house in the village. It has also been
noticed in the order that the vacant land had been encroached upon and the
Gram Panchayat promptly initiated action on application dated 13.01.2016
made by a social worker of village Nahri by sending it to the Deputy
Commissioner, Sonepat which was then forwarded to the BDPO, Rai and in
compliance of order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat the
BDPO, Rai wrote letter No.328 dated 10.03.2016 to the District Magistrate,
Sonepat for providing police help for removal of unauthorized possession of
the plaintiff-petitioners and one Suresh son of Rattan Singh from the land of
Gram Panchayat.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners has not been able to
show how the three ingredients of prima facie case, balance of convenience
and irreparable loss are made out in the present case.
JITENDER KUMAR
2023.04.29 11:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
CR No.1919 of 2021 -4- 2023:PHHC:061076
7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
29.04.2023 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
JITENDER KUMAR
2023.04.29 11:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
