Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2070 (ALL)

Chatur Singh v. Rahul Singh

2015-07-23

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners instituted a suit in representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC against the respondents for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from encroaching upon the suit property which, according to the plaintiffs-petitioners, is plot no. 135 recorded as manure pit (Khad Ka Gaddha) in the revenue records. According to the plaint case the villagers have installed an idol of Maa Durga over a portion of the suit property. It is alleged that the respondents have illegally constructed a building of Junior High School over adjoining plot no. 134 and they now intend to encroach upon the suit land. 3. The suit was contested by Goan Sabha who is defendant no. 2 in the suit by filing a written statement in which, it was pointed out the school building exists over Gata No. 134 which is Goan Sabha property. The manure pit exists over Gata No. 135. The defendants stated in the written statement that they do not intend to make any encroachment or constructions over Gata No. 135 which is recorded in the revenue record as a manure pit. 4. The plaintiffs-petitioners also filed an application for temporary injunction. It was rejected by the trial court by impugned order dated 17.7.2012. The order has been affirmed by the appellate court. 5. The trial court held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove prima facie case in their favour. It is held that concededly Gata no.135 is recorded as Khad Ka Gaddha in the revenue record and thus it belongs to the State Government and is in management of the second respondent. It has been further noted that the school exists over Gata No.134. It has been constructed out of the funds given by the State Government. The version of the petitioners that the defendants intend to raise constructions over Gata No. 135 has been disbelieved. The trial court concluded by holding that no injunction can be granted against Gaon Sabha, which is the true owner of the suit property. The lower appellate court has concurred with the findings recorded by the trial court. 6. The only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that under the garb of raising constructions over Gata No. 134, which admittedly belongs to the school, the respondents intend to make constructions over Gata no. 135. 7. The lower appellate court has concurred with the findings recorded by the trial court. 6. The only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that under the garb of raising constructions over Gata No. 134, which admittedly belongs to the school, the respondents intend to make constructions over Gata no. 135. 7. Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, on the basis of instructions received by him, has made a statement before the Court that the Gaon Sabha does not intend to make any construction over Gata No. 135 which is a land of public utility i.e., Khaad ka Gaddha. 8. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the second respondent, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of the petitioners and the other residents of the village, as the suit has been instituted in the representative capacity, is amply safeguarded. 9. Accordingly, without interfering with the impugned orders and taking into consideration the statement made by learned counsel for the second respondent, this petition stands disposed of.