ABHA TYAGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order dated 12th May, 2004 passed by Additional District Judge whereby an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC filed by the appellants has been dismissed. The facts in the backdrop may be summarized as under :-

(2.) The appellants claim to be the bhumidar/ owner of the property measuring 600 sq.yds. forming part of Khasra No.2029/1675 (old) and 1244 (new) situated in the revenue estate and Abadi area of village Kishangarh, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, which has been recorded as Shamlat Patti Gano', gair mumkin abadi' and banjar qadim'. That it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that during the course of preparation of trial with respect to a Suit No 1868/1994 which had been instituted by one Sh. Gynandra Sharma, to whom the land in question originally belonged and where an interim stay was granted in favour of the plaintiffs, fearing demolition of the suit property, it came to the knowledge of the appellants that the revenue records with respect to the land in question had been incorrectly maintained and that the appellants had neither been shown as owners /Bhumidars nor in possession of the same. Further, the land had been wrongly and illegally shown to be vested in the Gaon sabha in the Revenue Records.

(3.) It was further submitted by the appellants that appellant No.2 along with others had earlier instituted a writ petition CWP No 3811/2001 titled as "Village Kishangarh Welfare Association (Regd) V/s Union of India and Others" before this High Court, wherein this Court vide orders dated 4.06.2001 and 8.06.2001 had granted stay against demolition and dispossession of the petitioners therein. The said interim orders were subsequently confirmed on 27.09.2002. However, as the question of title was involved, this Court vide order dated 10.01.2003 granted liberty to the petitioners therein to file their separate suits and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore the appellants filed a Suit No 109/2003 on 16th January, 2003 seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants prohibiting and restraining them from demolishing, sealing or interfering in any manner in the possession of the appellant in the suit property and to have the said incorrect and illegal entries in the Revenue Records corrected.