SUBEDAR ASHOK KUMAR CHAUHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 30th September 2008 because the learned Civil Judge did not grant interim injunction under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of CPC to the petitioner.

(2.) THE subject matter of the suit is a property bearing Khasra No. 240, dindarpur, Nazafgarh, New Delhi wherein an illegal construction had been raised. This illegal construction was sought to be demolished by the respondent in accordance with law. The petitioners wanted that the Court should stay the demolition and thus filed a suit as well as an application for interim injunction. The petitioners had also filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10053-64 of 2006 before this Court. This petition was dismissed on 20th August 2008. The petitioners were enjoying an interim order during pendency of writ petition which also was vacated by the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the petition. The Division Bench of this Court after considering the rival contentions and the arguments observed that the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to produce any document to show the ownership, title or possession of the petitioners qua the land in Khasra No. 240. Before the Division bench, the petitioners had produced the same documents that were later filed before the learned Civil Judge. The documents included agreement to sell, affidavit, Will, receipts etc in respect of property in question. The said documents were silent on the aspect of ownership of the previous owners. The revenue record regarding Khasra No. 240 revealed that vide resolution No. 16th november 1996 the land in Khasra No. 240 was allotted to Smt. Manohari wife of rakam Singh Pattedar by the elected body of Gaon Sabha. Thereafter the elected body filed a petition under Section 75 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for quashing the allotment. This petition was allowed vide order dated 3rd September 2006 and necessary entries cancelling the allotment in favour of Smt. Manohari wife of Rakam Singh Pattedar were given effect to in the revenue record. The gaon Sabha claimed that the petitioners had no title and had encroached upon the common land of Gaon Sabha.

(3.) THE petitioners had not shown if there was any document of ownership in their favour even to this Court. After dismissal of writ petition, petitioners re-agitated the same matter before Civil Judge. I find that the petitioners had not made out any case for grant of interim injunction. There is no infirmity in the trial court"s order. The petition is baseless and is hereby dismissed.