SADHU RAM Vs. ROHTAK IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision Nos. 3520 and 3563 of 1997 are being disposed of by this common judgment as the point raised in both the petitions is similar. For the purpose of this judgment, facts from C. R. No. 3520 of 1997 have been taken.

(2.) IN this case, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction against Rohtak Improvement Trust (respondent-herein) with the prayer that the respondent-defendants be restrained from carving out plots on any part of the street site running from North to South on the eastern side of their factory building by way of conducting public auction. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for interim injunction. The said application was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rohtak, vide order dated 10th April, 1997. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the said order, dated 10th April, 1997 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, vide order dated 21st August, 1997. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the courts below, the present petitions have been filed by the petitioners.

(3.) MR . Goyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submitted that the disputed land was acquired by the defendants under the Trust Development Scheme No. 19 vide Notification dated 28th June, 1974 which was duly approved by the State Government. He submitted that the said land was lying vacant for the last 25 years as per the report of the Local Commissioner. He submitted that as per the case of the plaintiffs, defendant-Trust had agreed to leave 12 feet wide land out of their land and the plaintiffs had agreed to leave 8 feet wide land both these lands combined together were converted into a street. He, however, submitted that as per the observations of the courts below, the plaintiffs have failed to produce any document in support of their said averment. He further submitted that the local Commissioner appointed by the learned trial Court, in his report, has stated that the disputed land was situated in Khasra No. 8086 but the land belonging to the plaintiffs is situated in Khasras No. 8084-8085. He, therefore, contended that both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the prayer of the plaintiffs for interim injunction.