GRAM SABHA KHUNYARA Vs. MAJOR LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners by this revision petition have assailed the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharmsala dated 6th April, 1977, whereby the order passed by the learned Senior Sub -Judge, Dharmsala vacating the ad -interim injunction order was set aside.

(2.) The material facts relevant to decide this revision petition may be stated. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filled a suit against the petitioners (hereafter referred to as the defendants), wherein it was contended that defendants 1 and 2 (the Gram Sabha) own certain slate quarries and that the plaintiffs were lessees under them since 1972 and in that capacity they have been extracting slates from the said quarries on payment of rent or in the alternative on payment of haq -malkana or royalty at the rate of 8% of the sale proceeds which was subsequently raised to 16%. By a Resolution No. 75 of 13th July, 1975, The aforesaid Gram Sabha constituted a Board styled as Ghaniara Gablidhar Board and defendants 3 to 13 were appointed as its members who were authorised to grant or withheld leases in respect of the slate quarries. The defendants 3 to 10 passed a Resolution No. 34 on the same day whereby the quarries as mentioned in the plaint were ordered to be closed for the operation of extracting slates with effect from 15th July, 1975, declaring them as dangerous areas. A notice to this effect was displayed out -hide the office of the two Gram Sabhas at Ghaniara. According to the plaintiffs, they were inducted as lessess as a result of a lease deed in 1972 whereby the lease was to commence on the 1st of April and to terminate on 31st of March each year. It is claimed by the plaintiffs that there was an implied promise to renew the lease and that they have been in possession as such even belong 31st of March, 1975 on payment of rent of defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiffs also contended that the lease is deemed to have been renewed for the year 1976 as the plaintiffs had been operating the quarries on paying ˜haq -malkana. The plaintiffs also averred in the plaint that since the aforesaid resolution of the Board had caused apprehension in their minds that their rights are likely to be inveded Dy the defendants, they instituted a suit to the effect that the said resolution of the Board was mala fide; illegal and void and the plaintiffs are entitled to continue in possession of the mines and extract slates therefrom as leasees without any hinderance. The defendants in their written statement resisted the suit and contended that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the mines as leases and also asserted that the leasses had been terminated on 31st of March, 1975 in accordance with the terms of lease: On this basis, it was contended that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit

(3.) An application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed by the plaintiffs for an ad -interim injunction praying pending the disposal of the suit, the defendants be restrained from interfering with the working of the slate quarries by the plaintiffs. An ad -interim injunction order was initially passed but the same was vacated soon thereafter by the Senior Sub -Judge. An appeal against the said order was filed which was decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharmsala and the same was allowed,