PANCHAYAT SAMITI Vs. PANCHAYAT SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the orders dated 19.10.2007 and 13.09.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Sardulgarh and Additional District Judge, Mansa, respectively, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from forcibly dispossessing the petitioner from the land in dispute, has been dismissed.

(2.) AS per the averments in this petition, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner illegally and forcibly on the averments that the provincial Government was the owner of the land in dispute and vide notification dated 17.05.1950, the aforesaid land vested in the Gram Panchayat, Sardulgarh. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Gram Panchayat, Sardugarh donated the suit property to the petitioner vide resolution dated 30.10.1996 and since then the petitioner is owner in possession of the land and in the revenue record also the possession of the land is recorded in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is using the property in dispute and now the Nagar Panchayat has come into existence in place of Gram Panchayat, Sardulgarh and respondent-defendant Nos. 2 and 3 want to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the property in dispute. Along with this suit, the petitioner also filed an application for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from forcibly dispossessing the petitioner. The aforesaid application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Courts below vide impugned orders on the ground that the Gram Panchayat, Sardulgarh had no power to alienate the suit land challenging the aforesaid orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Courts below have failed to take into consideration that in the revenue record the possession of the petitioner has been recorded and thus the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner and he was entitled to protect his possession during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid, the Courts below rightly dismissed the application for ad interim injunction. Moreover, the ad interim injunction has been refused by the trial Court in its discretion. No perversity has been shown in the exercise of the aforesaid discretion by the Courts below.