NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have impugned the order dtd. 31/3/2015 passed by learned District Judge, Haridwar in Civil Revision No.27 of 2015 (State of Uttarakhand and others v. Narendra Kumar and others), whereby during pendency of said revision, the State was directed to continue construction over the land in dispute.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that petitioners filed Original Suit No.26 of 2014 (Narendra Kumar and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others) before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Laksar seeking permanent injunction. In the said suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was moved for temporary injunction; when the trial Court failed to pass any order on the said application, another application (24C2) under Sec. 151 C.P.C. was moved by the petitioners-plaintiffs praying for maintaining status quo with regard to the property in dispute. The said application came to have been decided by the learned Trial Court vide order dtd. 26/3/2015 after hearing both the parties and the trial Court has been gracious enough to pass order in favour of petitioners restraining the State and its agencies not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the property in dispute and further restrained them (respondent-State) from raising any construction thereon; and the State was further directed to maintain status quo with regard to the said suit property. Feeling aggrieved by the order dtd. 26/3/2015 passed by the learned trial Judge, the State preferred the aforesaid civil revision. In the said revision, impugned order dtd. 31/3/2015 has been passed whereby an interim order was passed in favour of the respondent-State; and the State and its agencies were permitted to raise construction over the suit property. It is feeling aggrieved by the said order dtd. 31/3/2015, petitioners-plaintiffs have come up before this Court in the present writ petition.

(3.) Admittedly, there is dispute as to whether the construction raised by the State is on the suit property or it is on the property of the State, yet the civil revision has been rejected later on by learned Revisional Court by its order dtd. 21/1/2019 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Haridwar holding the revision as not maintainable and the file was consigned to the office. Copy of said order is supplied to the Court which is taken on records.