Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2012 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh v. Mohan Singh

2009-11-19

A.N.JINDAL

body2009
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure P5) and 5.3.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the courts below. 2. Both the courts below held that the land involved in the suit was owned by the Gram Panchayat and formed part of Khasra No.23//22/1, therefore, the plaintiff having no prima facie case in his favour was not entitled to grant of injunction. 3. The factual background of the case is that the land comprised in Khasra No. 23//2/1 situated at village Pallian Kalan, Tehsil & District Nawan-shahar is owned by the Gram Panchayat. The plaintiff claims himself to be in possession over the suit property and apprehending that the defendant wanted to dispossess him forcibly knocked the door of the court. 4. The defendant-petitioner (herein referred as the defendant) filed the written statement wherein he took some preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; and concealment of the facts. On merits, it has been admitted that the suit property is owned by the Gram Panchayat and earmarked for the use of manure pits by the residents of the village and that the defendant having stored the manure is using the same for the last 35-40 years. The defendant has further submitted that since the plaintiff was threatening to encroach upon the suit property, therefore, he had to move an application to the authorities for conducting demarcation for protecting his possession. Along with the suit an application for ad-interim injunction was filed which was dismissed by both the courts below. Heard. 5. There is no denying a fact that the suit property which forms the part of Khasra No. 23//22/1 belongs to Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat is recorded in possession of the suit property. Column of cultivation further reveals that the same is used for collecting manure pits. The name of the plaintiff does not figure in any portion of the land. Undisputedly, the suit land is meant for use by the general public and the plaintiff could not encroach upon or convert the same for his own use. As such the plaintiff cannot be said to have prima facie case in his favour. The name of the plaintiff does not figure in any portion of the land. Undisputedly, the suit land is meant for use by the general public and the plaintiff could not encroach upon or convert the same for his own use. As such the plaintiff cannot be said to have prima facie case in his favour. A perusal of the document relied upon by the defendant reveals that upon a com plaint filed by him to the concerned authorities regarding illegal possession of plaintiff, a demarcation was conducted by the revenue authorities and the plaintiff was found to be in illegal possession of 10 marlas of the land and directions for appropriate action were sought. It is not uncommon that unscrupulous elements make attempts to encroach upon public land, as the same, at times, is left unguarded. Such like tendencies need to be checked at the very inception as such these people do not attract equity. A reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by this Court in case Mohan Lal v. Mohan Singh, 1996(1) CCC 30 wherein it was observed as under :- "Apart from the three ordinary ingredients which must be satisfied for grant of injunction in favour of a plaintiff/petitioner, namely a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. In cases involving public properties and public interest, the courts have to bear in mind as to whether the grant of injunction would be conducive or detrimental to public interest. The courts have to take note of the fact that Government lands belonging to the public at large and the community as a whole is entitled to enjoy the properties belonging to the Government. In fact, the Government holds property as a Trustee of the people land, therefore, where any attempt is made by an individual or a group of individuals to misappropriate/ misuse or otherwise interfere with the enjoyment of public property by the people in general, the Courts have to be extremely cautious in granting injunction in favour of such person only on the ground that he is in possession of the property. Possession of public property by such an individual or a group of individuals is no possession in the eyes of law. Possession of public property by such an individual or a group of individuals is no possession in the eyes of law. Such a person cannot claim any right whatsoever on the basis of unlawful occupation of the public property and Courts would be justified in declining any assistance to such a person. In such like case, a Plaintiff cannot claim parity with a person who has a dispute with another individual over a private property. Moreover the courts have to act as guardian of the public property and should not pass an order of injunction in favour of a person, who has made unauthorized encroachment of the public property." 6. Thus, the settled proposition of law which could be culled out, relating to the common purpose land, is that all the villagers including the parties to the suit could use the same without claiming it to be their exclusive ownership or possession, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be said to have prima facie in his favour for grant of injunction, Even otherwise, it is well settled that whether the discretion with regard to grant of injunction has been exercised by the courts below in favour of the party, the same cannot be easily interfered with merely for the reason that there could be possibility of forming second opinion on the facts of the case. In the result, the instant petition being unmerited is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.