GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. PUNJAB MANDI BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Shri Gurcharan Singh had filed a suit for permanent injunction in the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Muktsar, Alongwith the suit an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was filed, praying for issuance of a temporary prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land. It was averred by the plaintiff that he was in peaceful possession of 4 kanals of land described in the plaint, for more than 12 years and he has been cultivating the suit land himself. The possession and cultivation by the applicant was in the knowledge of the defendants. It is further stated that he had taken the land on lease 14-15 years ago and thereafter he had been in forcible possession of the same, till now. The defendants were stated to be owners of the property as recorded in the revenue records and they were trying to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly and illegally. According to the plaintiff he shall suffer irreparable loss and damage if he is permitted to forcibly dispossess from the land. As the defendants did not restrain themselves even after the notice was duly served upon them, he has been compelled to file the present suit.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants who took up the plea that the land in question belonged to the Market Committee, defendant No. 2 since 17.6.1995. It is further submitted that since then every year land is being given on lease by public auction. On 29.3.1994 Kabal Singh, S/o Darshan Singh had given the bid at the rates of Rs. 4,900/- per acre and he deposited the total amount i.e. Rs. 28,690/- on 30.3.1994. Infact, with regard to the said auction the plaintiff Gurcharan Singh had himself participated and gave a bid but was not accepted. He signed the auction register for the year 1993-94, bid was accepted in favour of Gurdit Singh S/o Sham Singh and the successful bidder came in possession. It was stated that the defendant is estopped from filing the present petition. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the injunction application vide order dated 27.3.1996. This order was unsuccessfully assailed in appeal by the plaintiff appellant. The learned Ist Appellate Court vide a detailed order dated 18.10.1997 dismissed the appeal. It is this order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Muktsar which has been assailed in appeal before this Court in the Civil Revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the case of 'N. Umapathy v. B.V. Muniyappa, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2467, to argue that he cannot be dispossessed except in due process of law. While learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of 'Smt. Gur Dai v. Arjan Singh (died) through L.Rs., (1997-1)115 P.L.R. 666.