BHAGCHAND KUMAWAT Vs. RAM CHANDRA SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15. 05. 2009 passed by the learned Single judge, whereby S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12163/2008, filed by respondent, Ram Chandra Saini, has been allowed setting aside the order dated 21. 08. 2008 passed by the Appellate Court. The dispute involved is with regard to the land bearing Survey Nos. 106, 107, 108 and 109 of village Sodala, measuring 4 Bigha, 18 Biswa, and has been purchased from Khatedar Ram Chandra Saini by the Ram Nagar Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti and that Samiti has issued allotment of the plot to the the various persons including the appellants and they, as allottees, are in possession of the land. Since their possession was under threat, they filed a suit and in interim the trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo on spot. Against the status quo order, the plaintiffs-appellants preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court restrained the respondent-Khatedar not to interfere in the possession and proprietary right of the plaintiffs.

(2.) THE order of the Appellate Court was challenged by respondent Ram Chandra Saini by way of writ petition No. 12163/2008 and the learned Single judge, while setting aside the order of the appellate Court, observed as under:-In this case learned trial court has held that by the evidence available on the record, the physical condition of the property in dispute is not clear but learned appellate court without referring to any evidence for arriving at a conclusion that the disputed plots are in possession of the plaintiffs has granted stay in favour of the plaintiffs and has restrained the defendant-petitioner from interfering in the possession and proprietary right of the plaintiffs. This is entirely perverse and illegal. The impugned order dated 21. 08. 2008 passed by the learned appellate Court is therefore not sustainable.

(3.) THE appellants have filed this appeal on the ground that the order of the learned Single judge is not sustainable as the appellants are in possession of the property, as allottees. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.