CHARANJEET SINGH THRU POWER OF ATTORNEY GURDEEP SINGH BHATIA AND 2 ORS Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND 2 ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants/Plaintiffs have filed the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC against the order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the 10th Additional District Judge by which application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 for temporary injunction has been rejected.

(2.) Facts of the case, in short, for disposal of this Miscellaneous Appeal are as under:

(3.) Thereafter, plaintiffs read notice published by IDA in the newspaper dated 14.09.2012 by which plot No.2, Scheme No.94 has been reserved for educational purpose. NITs were invited for sale of the said land. The suit land which is being used by the plaintiff as way to their land is part of Plot No.2. Immediately the plaintiff filed the writ petition before this Court i.e. W.P.No.9110/2012 challenging the tender notice dated 14.09.2012. Vide order dated 25.09.2012 interim protection was granted to the plaintiffs. The respondents took an objection that writ petition seeking easementary right is not maintainable and said land has already been acquired in the year 1987 under the Land Acquisition Act and award to that effect has been passed on 30.03.1991. The respondent No.3 also intervene in the said writ petition as they are also owner of the adjacent land (Area 1.50 lac sq.ft) because they wanted to construct a 30 beds hospital on it. They have also claimed the right to passage through Plot No.2. Later on, the writ petition was withdrawn on 07.08.2012 with a liberty to file a civil suit. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 by way of open auction has purchased the Plot No.2 from the IDA for the construction of educational institution. The plaintiff filed the suit along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 seeking relief that the suit land is only passage available to reach their land from Ring Road, therefore, the defendant be restrained to obstruct the said right of way. The plaintiffs have also challenged the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. After notice defendant No.1 and 2 filed reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 stating that the entire land has been acquired in the year 1987 under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and now vested with the IDA. The entire area has been developed by the IDA. The defendant No.3 also filed reply stating that they have purchased Plot No.2 from the IDA for construction of Educational Institute, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for temporary injunction.