TARA CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondent No. 1 not to operate the petrol pump under the name and style of "M/s Lalita Filling Station" situated at Bhambla, Tehsil Pouni, District Reasi on the ground that brother of the petitioner, namely, Sham Lal without the consent of the petitioner installed a petrol pump on one portion of the joint property, falling under Khasra No. 200 min measuring 3 kanals and 3 marlas, situated at village Bhambla, Tehsil Pouni, District Reasi.

(2.) It is stated that one of the co-sharers, namely, Sham Lal by fraud and manipulation and connivance with the revenue field agency without the knowledge of the other co-sharers, has installed the petrol pump in the aforesaid joint landed property after mortgaging the same with the Bank. It is also the case of the petitioner that said Sham Lal, who is the brother of the petitioner introduced his wife, namely, Lalita Devi i.e. respondent No. 4 as one of the owners in the land bearing Khasra No. 200 min, whereas respondent No. 4 has no right to be styled as owner in the joint property during the life time of Sham Lal. The petitioner after attaining the knowledge of transfer of the land falling under Khasra No. 200 min in name of respondent No. 4 by his brother filed a suit for partition before the Court of Tehsildar Pouni, wherein the Tehsildar directed the parties to maintain status quo over the whole un-partitioned land property, including Khasra No. 200 min. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 1 by way of legal notice for stopping operation of the petrol pump under the name and style of "M/s Lalita Filling Station". The respondent No. 1 submitted the reply to the legal notice, however, respondent No. 1 did not stop operation of the petrol pump.

(3.) Response stands filed by the respondent No. 4, in which it is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable as disputed questions of facts are involved, those cannot be determined by this Court. The respondent No.4 in his reply has given the various factual aspects of the matter, those may not be relevant for disposal of the present writ petition.