SANTOSH BAI Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the appellant herein filed the impugned suit for perpetual injunction contending that under some residential scheme a plot 15x60 sq. ft. of the survey no. 179 of village charnal was given by the Naib Tahsildar on lease to the mother of the appellant, vide dated 13.8.1991 for the purpose of construction of residential house. Subsequent to that, the house was also constructed by the mother of the appellant and near about before fifteen days from the date of filing the suit, the mother of the appellant Kalibai had passed away. Since the death of mother of the appellant, the appellant is residing with her family in such house. Some political persons having the enmity with the family of the appellant under some conspiracy with the Tahsildar of Shyampur are trying to dismental the house of the appellant. In this regard some enquiry was also held on the spot by the Tahsildar through Patwari and such Patwari had informed the appellant that proceeding to dismental her house is 2 being carried out in the Tahsil. In continuation, it is stated that if such house is dismentaled by the authority of respondent, then she being poor person has to suffer irreparable injury. With these averments, the impugned suit for perpetual injunction against the authority of respondent to protect her house and possession over the plot was filed.

(3.) In the WS of the respondents averments of the plaintiff are denied. In addition to it, it is stated that on dated 2.8.1998, the Gram Panchayat of the concerning village had passed the resolution for rejection of the lease of the plot in dispute because the allottee has not constructed the house in accordance with the terms and the conditions of the lease in last eight years and pursuant to such resolution the lease of the plot granted to Kalibai was cancelled. It is also stated that right under the lease of the alleged patta was given only to Kalibai, therefore, her successor, the appellant did not have any right to retain such plot, subsequent to such cancellation of the plot. It is further stated that the land of the plot in dispute and its adjoining land have already been allotted to some other villagers on lease to construct the shops and now they are in possession of the same. With these pleadings, the prayer for rejection of the suit is made.