PREMA RAM Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT, JAKHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. In the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner, the two Courts below have refused temporary injunction in favour of petitioner. The defendant/respondent No. 1, Gram Panchayat, Jakhal, has contested this writ petition submitting that the public land was encroached by the petitioner and when the eviction proceedings were undertaken by the Gram Panchayat treating him as trespasser, the petitioner/plaintiff approached the trial Court with the present injunction suit, in which the learned Courts below have rightly refused to grant temporary injunction. With the help of photographs produced before this Court, both the learned counsel have argued their case.

(2.) MR . Sanjeet Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that there is no encroachment made by the petitioner/plaintiff and there was no proceedings against the petitioner for removal of encroachment on the entire land in question. He further submitted that the defendant -Gram Panchayat -Jakhal, has an alternative way to reach the Society's Office and the godown, which in fact, is not being used for last so many years and, therefore, the learned Courts below have erred in rejecting temporary injunction application. He further submitted that a coordinate bench of this Court has granted status quo order, though ex -parte, on 04.04.2013, which deserves to be continued during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that though the impugned orders concurrently made by the two Courts below normally require no interference by this Court. However, since a coordinate bench of this Court has granted status quo order, therefore, it is clarified that the status quo order is modified and it is ordered that the status quo order will not come in the way of the proceedings taken by the defendant -Gram Panchayat in accordance with law, the stay order granted by a coordinate bench deserves to be continued. The question of the fact as to whether the entire land in question has been encroached over by the petitioner/plaintiff or there was some new encroachment or not, are the facts to be established by the relevant evidence before the learned trial Court. The defendant - Gram Panchayat, is certainly free to undertake the proceedings in accordance with law for removing the encroachment made by the plaintiff/petitioner and it is for the plaintiff/petitioner to adduce evidence about his title over the land/property in question and the suit is admittedly pending before the learned trial Court. Even though, the defendant Gram Panchayat, Jakhal or the public of the village may have alternative passage to the Society's Office and godown, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but that does not entitle the plaintiff/petitioner to encroach over the public way or land and it is for him to adduce evidence about his title, if any. Therefore, with this modification, as indicated above, the said status quo order will continue during the pendency of the trial. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.