Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 272 (JK)

Union Of India v. Ram Nath

2002-08-23

B.L.BHAT

body2002
This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 17.7.2002 recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu in Civil Appeal titled as Union of India & Ors, v. Ram Nath. It is taken up for final disposal and adjudication with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent came to file a suit for permanent prohibitory injuction against the defendants-petitioners to the effect that defendant No. 1 and its subordinate officers-defendants No. 2 to 5 be permanently restrained to interfere with the land measuring about 89 kanals 2 marlas comprising of Survey No. 122-min, 131-min, 133-min, 101, 103, 111, 114, 115, 108, 113, 116, 105, 109, 106, 107, 104 and 110 located at village Deeli Tehsil Jammu which is in peaceful possession of the plaintiff and one Bansi Lal who have purchased 40 kanals 8 marlas out of this land by virtue of sale deeds dated 20.1.2000, 29.3.2000, 25.4.2000 and 8.8.2000 and the remaining land of 48 kanals 14 marlas stands leased out to them jointly for a period of 83 years by the land owners vide lease deeds dated 29.3.2000, 6.4.2000 and 8.4.2000. Alongside this suit, an application for issuance of temporary injuction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff till final disposal of the suit also came to be filed before the trial court. The defendants came to file their written statement, wherein they appear to have resisted the claim of respondent/plaintiff by stating inter-alia that the suit land is in possession of defendants and the same has been ac quired way back in the years 1947 to 1950. The learned trial court after hearing the parties allowed the petition and came to issue an ad-interim injuction restraining the defendants to interfere into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff with respect to suit land till the final disposal of of the suit. This order came to be challenged before the first appellate court by the defendants who after re-appraisal of the documents placed on the file by the parties came to dismiss the appeal after holding that the learned trial court was perfectly justified in allowing the petition for grant of ad-interim injuction. 3. The stand of Mr. This order came to be challenged before the first appellate court by the defendants who after re-appraisal of the documents placed on the file by the parties came to dismiss the appeal after holding that the learned trial court was perfectly justified in allowing the petition for grant of ad-interim injuction. 3. The stand of Mr. Arora, Additional CGSC is that the plaintiff -respondent had filed a writ petition for the relief which has been prayed in the suit, the same came to be disposed of by this court by directing that if the plaintiff-respondent is in legal and valid possession, he shall not be dispossessed except in due course of law. The plaintiff sought review of this order before this court which came to be dismissed. Against this order, the plaintiff approached the Letters Patent Bench of this court in appeal which came to be dismissed. That the defendants are in possession of suit land and that defendant-1 has made requisition to the State Govt. for the acquisition of this land. 4. On the other hand, the stand of the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff is that the plaintiff alongwith one Bansi Lal has purchased 40 kanals and 8 marlas of suit land by virtue of various sale deeds and the remaining land has been leased out to them by owners of this land. He further contends that plaintiff alongwith one Bansi Lal has entered into possession of this land after the execution of sale deeds and lease deeds by the owners of this land in favour of the plaintiff and one Bansi Lal. 5. Considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and also perused the photo copy of the documents placed on file by the revisionists. From the perusal of this record, it reveals that respondent and one Bansi Lal purchased 40 kanals 8 marlas, the part of suit land by virtue of various sale deeds dated 20.1.2000, 29.3.2000, 25.4.2000 and 8.8.2000, whereby, title of the suit land alongwith possession came to be transferred by the erstwhile owners to them and they have also entered into possession of the remaining part of land by virtue of duly executed lease deeds dated 29.3.2000, 6.4.2000 and 8.8.2000 by the owners of this land in their favour. The Union of India-defendants have sought acquisition of land measuring 174 kanals 01 marlas for the construction of Kendriya Vidyalaya School, Deeli. Thereafter there is nothing on the file to show whether any step towards requisition and acquisition has been taken. The report of Tehsildar, Settlement Jammu addressed to Deputy Commissioner, Jammu under his No. STJ/N/373 dated 4.11.2000 reveals that land measuring 30 kanals 5 marlas comprising of Kh.Nos. 104, 110, 122-min, 131 and 133 has been purchased by one Bansi Lal and Ram Nath alongwith the occupancy rights through the said sale deeds and land measuring 10 kanals 3 marlas has been purchased alongwith ownership rights and that land measuring about 48 kanals 14 marlas comprising of Survey No. 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115 and 116 has been taken by them from its own owners namely, Vinay Kumar and Chatanye Choudhary by virtue of lease deeds duly registered for a long term lease. He has further reported that there is no entry in favour of the Army with respect to the land in question in the revenue record, Letter of Director Defence Estate addressed to GOC dated 26.12.2000 marked as annexure-E reveals that the Defence Estate Officer has intimated the HQrs. Northern Command (Q) C/o 56 APO in reference to letter No. 26015/DEELI/Q31 dated 2.11.1999 for proposed acquisition of 112 kanals 03 marlas of land at village Deeli, wherein, he has intimated that the perusal of the record reveals that the State Govt. has obtained its NOC for acquisition of 174 kanals 01 marla of land, however, no sanction was forthcoming. 6. Gradually the owners have constructed their houses and it is seen that the area proposed for acquisition is adjacent to residential colony. That the Military authorities will be asked to conduct spot survey of the land proposed for acquisition to identify the area of vacant land actually available for the acquisition and also made a request that the local military authorities be advised not to interfere with the legal occupation/ use of the rightful owners. That the Military authorities will be asked to conduct spot survey of the land proposed for acquisition to identify the area of vacant land actually available for the acquisition and also made a request that the local military authorities be advised not to interfere with the legal occupation/ use of the rightful owners. The letter of Additional Commissioner, Jammu to GOC HQ 26 Infantry Division C/o 56 APO marked as annexure-F reveals that the Additional Commissioner, Jammu has made a request to the said GOC to the effect that in view of letter of Tehsildar, Settlement, Jammu the army authorities should desist from interfering in the peaceful possession or raising any construction over the land. From the bare glance of these documents, it is manifest that the respondent-plaintiff is prima-facie in possession of the suit land alongwith one Bansi Lal, therefore, the plaintiff has a strong prima-facie case in his favour, courts interference is also necessary to protect the plaintiff from the species of irreparable injury before he can establish his title before the trial court. Balance of convenience also tilts in his favour because withholding of ad-interim injuction sought by him in the suit shall cause more inconvenience to defendants if the same is granted. The first appellate court and trial court appear to have considered these factors which govern grant or refusal of ad-interim injuction while passing the orders with respect to this relief of grant of ad-interim injuction sought by the plaintiff. 7. For the reasons stated above, I have not been able to notice any infirmity, perversity or judicial error in the orders passed by the courts below. The courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff being in possession has strong prima-facie case in his favour and is likely to suffer irreparable loss if ad-interim injuction is refused to him. In revision I cannot interfere in the orders of courts below because the same does not suffer from any perversity, jurisdictional error nor have been passed with any illegality or material irregularity. 8. Therefore, this motion of revision is disallowed. The trial court be informed accordingly.