MOHAMMAD HUSAIN RAMJAN HUSAIN Vs. CHAIRMAN MANDI COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff brought a suit, against the Mandi Committee Gulabganj, Bhilsa, alleging that on his field (the Survey numbers of which are 133 and 135/3), and the area of which is 21 Bighas 16 Bishwas) the Mandi Committee had made an encroachment and that it wanted to establish a bullock-cart part there. With this end in view, the Mandi Committee had had the grass standing in the field cut. In the written statement the Mandi Committee stated that proceedings for the acquisition of the land were pending and while denying that they dispossessed the plaintiff of the land, it was admitted that they had got 2 or 3 Bighas of the ground cleared of the grass. The suit is thus in respect of a trespass that the defendant has committed and the plaintiff sought a perpetual injunction against the Mandi Committee. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the land in dispute belonged to the plaintiff and that the defendant's encroachment was not lawful. The trial court also issued a perpetual injunction against the Mandi Committee. On an appeal being filed by the mandi Committee, the District Judge, Guna; allowed the appeal with costs and set aside the perpetual injunction. Aggrieved by this decision, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

(2.) IT seems that the learned District Judge has set aside the injunction on the assurance which the Mandi Committee gave that in the future they shall not interfere with the possession of the plaintiff, and for that reason also the court awarded costs against the plaintiff. I am afraid the approach of the learned District judge is not at all correct. The Mandi Committee having encroached upon the land of the plaintiff gave him cause for filing this suit. If once it is established that the defendant has trespassed, as it is proved in this case, then mere assurance by the mandi Committee, the members of which will keep on changing, is not enough to set aside the perpetual injunction. As a matter of fact the Mandi Committee having once trespassed upon the land of the plaintiff, there is no guarantee that in the future they shall not do the same.

(3.) MR. Patankar, the learned counsel for the Mandi Committee, says that the Mandi committee never acquired possession of the lands of the plaintiff. I fail to understand the sense in which he talks of possession. There is no doubt that the mandi Committee by clearing part of the field made an encroachment and trespassed upon the land of the plaintiff for which an action does lie.