SURESH Vs. PRIYANKA GOEL AND JYOTI GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in the present revision is the order dated 17.5.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, affirming the order dated 17.1.2012, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, vide which the application of the plaintiffs (respondents herein), filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was allowed and the defendant (present revisionist) was restrained from demolishing the passage in question in any manner till the decision of the case.

(2.) The facts of the case, which are required to be noticed for the purpose of disposal of the present revision, are that the plaintiffs/respondents claim that they are co -owner in possession of the land bearing Khewat/Khata No. 1/68 Min, Rect. No. 42, Kila No. 11 (8 -0), total measuring 8 kanals to the extent of 130/160th share i.e. 6 kanals 10 marlas and Rect. No. 42, Kila No. 20/1(4 -0) to the extent of 30/80th share i.e. 1 kanal 10 marlas. The total land from both the kilas comes to 8 kanals, situated within the revenue estate of village Sanp Ki Nangli, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon. The land was purchased by the plaintiffs/respondents, vide sale deed dated 13.7.2011. The land was developed by Ansal House and Construction Limited and marked as Orchard No. B -02 under the Golden Orchard Scheme. They sold the said farm to Ashok Kumar and others, vide sale deed bearing Vasika No. 2523 dated 11.9.2007 and handed over the possession to them. Ashok Kumar etc. further sold the said farm to the plaintiffs/respondents by way of sale deed dated 13.7.2011. The mutation was accordingly sanctioned. It was further averred that a passage was allotted for ingress and egress to the farm towards Eastern side, which is connected to the main road. The plaintiffs/respondents have been using the said passage, which is a pucca passage of tarcol road. The defendant/revisionist wanted to demolish the said passage and called the JCB machine, necessitating the filing of the suit.

(3.) The defendant/revisionist, on the other hand, claimed that he is co -owner in possession of land bearing Rect. No. 42, Kila No. 12(8 -0), 19(8 -0), 21(5 -9), 22(3 -15), total measuring 25 kanals 4 marlas to the extent of 2/3rd share. His father Shri Ram Rikh is owner in possession to the extent of 1/3rd share, vide mutation bearing No. 845 dated 4.1.2012. The plaintiffs/respondents have no concern with the land of defendant/revisionist and his father. Kila Nos. 12 and 19 of the defendant/revisionist falls towards the Eastern side of the land bearing Kila Nos. 11 and 20, the part of which is stated to be owned and possessed by the plaintiffs/respondents. There is no passage at the spot. The land in question is an agricultural land. As per the provisions of Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restrictions of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963, no person shall erect or re -erect any building or make or extend any excavation or layout, any means or access to a road in a controlled area without the prior permission of Director, Town and Country Planning. Even as per the Aks -Shajra, there is no passage on the Eastern side of Kila No. 11 and 20. The main road is existing at a distance of 1 1/2 kilometers from the said land.