RAMESWAR RAI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision has been filed by Sri Rameswar Rai, petitioner herein under Section 115 CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC challenging the order dated 14.7.92 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 17/89 by Shri R.N. Dev, Asstt. District Judge No. 1, Guwahati whereby the learned Asstt. District Judge had set aside the order dated 20.12.88 passed by Sri L.C. Nath Munsiff No. 2, Guwahati in Misc.(J) Case No. 21/88 arising out of T.S. No. 19/88.

(2.) Consequent upon the issue of notice from the office of the SDO (Sadar) Pragjyotishpur, Panikheti on 4.3.86 under Rule 18(2) (3) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation for his eviction, the petitioner approached this court by way of filing a writ petition seeking to challenge the notice. This court however instead of entering into the merits of challenge posed by the petitioner against the notice disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the State Government to consider the petitioner's application for settlement of the land for a reasonable period or for the settlement of some alternative suitable lands if possible. Getting no positive response from the State Government, petitioner approached the Civil Court by filing Title Suit No. 19/86 for seeking an injunction order against his eviction from the suit land in pursuance of the notice and sought preliminary injunction as to protect his possession over the land during the pendency of the suit. The trial court granted the interim injunction order on the ground that the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss which shall not be able to be compensated in terms of money. Against the said order the State Government filed appeal challenging the legality of the order of interim injunction. In the appeal, the injunction order has been discharged. Hence, this revision.

(3.) In support of the revision, Sri S.P. Roy, learned Advocate made has argued that the trial court granted injunction order on consideration of various aspects including the prima facie case and balance of convenience of the pelitioner whereas the lower appellate court, without examining any of the relevant aspects of the case including prima facie case and balance of convenience, has illegally set aside the injunction order without application of mind. Learned counsel further argued that since the petitioner is occupying the land for many number of years for running brick kiln on it and have been paying huge revenue therefrom in the form of Sales Tax, land revenue and Royality therefore it will not at all be feasible to evict the petitioner as per the notice served on him by the SDO whereby contrary to law he has not been given an opportunity even to satisfy the SDO or the DC that his possession on the land covered by the notice is not illegal.