KISSAN ASSOCIATION Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 8th March, 1989 of the first appellate Court, which on appeal, reversed the judgment of the trial Court dated 16th Oct., 1987, whereby he allowed the application filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) for restraining the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) from taking possession of the disputed property pursuant to the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 1st April, 1987 .

(2.) The facts. The defendant moved an application before the Consolidation Officer for delivery of possession of the disputed land. The application was allowed vide order dated 1st April, 1987. Pursuant thereto, the defendant was trying to obtain possession of the disputed land. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the defendant was not entitled to obtain possession and for relief of a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from taking possession of the disputed land. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the Code) was also moved. The principal ground urged in that application was that the disputed property was owned by the Jumla Mushtarka Malkan and it was kept reserved during consolidation of holdings and the landowners were entitled to the allotment of the land according to their share in the Khewat. The land was not to be handed over by the Consolidation Officer according to their share in the Khewat.

(3.) The defendant, in turn, pleaded that he had filed a petition under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, the Act). The revision petition was allowed by the Additional Director of Consolidation, Jalandhar vide order dated 4th June, 1986 and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer vide bis order dated 1st April, 1987 upheld the claim of the defendant and pursuant to that order, the defendant was trying to recover possession of the disputed land.