KUNJ LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is directed against the order dated 1st May 2005 passed in appeal (3/Appeal) by learned Additional District Judge, Jammu whereby order dated 7.4.2001 passed by Sub -Judge, (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Jammu vacating ad interim injunction earlier granted has been confirmed.

(2.) THE petitioner -plaintiff herein approached the trial court for permanent prohibitory injunction claiming to be in possession of land measuring 2 kanals falling under khasra No. 218 situated at village Rah Salyote Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu in addition to land measuring 7 kanals and 11 marlas adjacent to the aforesaid land comprising khasra No. 4 and 4 min. The boundaries of the land measuring 2 kanals have also been specified in para 1 of the suit. The plaintiff -petitioner claims to be in peaceful possession of the land. The allegation as contained in the plaint are that the plaintiff is in cultivating physical possession of the 2 kanals of land which is also being used as a way/passage for entry to the adjacent land comprising of 7 kanals and 11 marlas till the date of filing of the suit. The defendant in the suit on 1st November 2000 started digging foundation surrounding the land comprising of 2 kanals which is under the cultivating possession of the plaintiff since 1975 as per the Revenue record. On these allegations, the trial court granted ad interim injunction. The defendants on being served filed written statement of facts and pleaded therein that the land in question comprising Khasra No. 218 was under requisition of the Defence since 1971 and that the rental compensation of the land has been deposited with the Revenue authorities. The possession of the petitioner herein was also denied. The trial court after hearing the parties and considering the material on record vacated the ad interim order vide its detailed order dated 7.4.2001.

(3.) AGGRIEVED of the vacation of the aforesaid order, the petitioner herein preferred a civil miscellaneous appeal before the Additional District Judge, Jammu who concurred with the order of the trial court and up -held the same. The petitioner has come against these two orders in revision before this Court assailing the findings of both the courts on the question of fact and on the question of law.