HARI RAM Vs. JAGDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff impugning the order dtd. 23/12/2020 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram, whereby the order passed by the learned trial Court dtd. 16/9/2020, allowing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has been set-aside. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, shall be referred to by their original position in the suit.

(2.) The brief facts as have been pleaded in the petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and it was pleaded in the suit that he is owner-in-possession of property, shown with letters ABCDEF in the site plan attached with the plaint, situated at village Jharsa. The property is part of khewat No.1302, khatuni No.1656, Rect. No.56 kila No.9/2 as per jamabandi for the year 2001-02. The plaintiff and his two brothers are recorded as owners of land comprised in Rect. No.56, Kila No.9/2. Bale Ram [father of plaintiff] was in possession of afore-mentioned property as a Gair Maurushi. Later on, it was purchased by plaintiff and their brothers. At the time of consolidation of holdings, the land measuring 2 Kanals 16 Marlas comprised in Khewat No.624, Khatoni No.758, Khasra No.179 was left as 'rasta a aam' (hereinafter to be referred as passage-in-dispute). The passage-in-dispute has been shown in aks-sijra and it has two karam width. It runs from North to South. Land comprised in Khasra No.26 kila No.9/2 abuts on the passage-in-dispute. The plaintiff has constructed his residential house and a shop which open in the passage-in-dispute. The plaintiff has right to access through passage-in-dispute which is public passage. The defendant has no right to cause interference in the use of passage-in-dispute by the plaintiff. The defendant threatened to interfere in the right of the plaintiff to use the passage-in-dispute. If the defendant succeeded in creating obstruction in the use of passage by plaintiff, then the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss. With these pleadings, he has claimed the interim relief.

(3.) The respondent/defendant contested the suit by filing a detailed written statement wherein it was submitted that suit has been filed to extort money from the defendant as plaintiff is aware that school is required to be constructed over the land earmarked to the same within a limited period otherwise possession of the site would revert back to the government. Vide Award No.02 dtd. 7/6/2004, land comprised in khasra No.179 to the extent of 179/2 (014) and 179 /3 (0-5) was acquired by Land Acquisition Collector and was transferred to HUDA. M/s Pioneer Land infrastructure Ltd. purchased the land comprised in afore-mentioned khasra number as per sale deed bearing No.17265 dtd. 11/12/2009. Mutation No.5826 was entered and sanctioned in favour of the purchaser. M/s Pioneer Land Infrastructure amalgamated the land comprised in khasra No.179/2 and 179/3 with other land owned by it and constructed and developed a residential colony. It obtained various licenses from time to time from Director of Town and Country Planning, Haryana. The colony is known as Greenwood City. License No.74 of 2010 was granted by competent authorities regarding land comprised in khasra No.179/2 and 179/3 and the character of land has been changed. Part completion certificate was granted by Director of Town and Country Planning, Haryana on 3/4/2019. The land earmarked for construction of nursery school was allotted to defendant vide allotment letter dtd. 10/6/2019. Possession letter was issued in favour of the defendant on 21/12/2019. He purchased land as per conveyance deed dtd. 4/11/2019. He is owner-in-possession of said land and is entitled to use the land in any manner. No passage ever existed at spot after grant of license No.74 of 2010. The passage in question was never utilized by plaintiff after its acquisition by HUDA. The plaintiff and his predecessor never challenged conversion of land sanctioned vide license No.74.