JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. OMPs No. 3 & 86 of 2019 Before dealing with the above enumerated applications, it would be apt to highlight key details pertaining to the present matter. The plaintiffs (applicants in OMP No. 3 of 2019) filed the present suit under Order 7 read with Section 26 of CPC for permanent prohibitory injunction and for peaceful possession against the defendants (non-applicants in OMP No. 3 of 2019). The plaintiffs on various grounds, which find mention in the plaint, prayed for grant of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants and sought that defendants be restrained from obstructing and interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the land comprised in khasra Nos. 3612 and 3613, situate at Patti Sosan, Kothi Kanawar, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P. The plaintiffs alongwith the suit maintained an application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC (OMP No. 3 of 2019) seeking ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendants (non-applicants in OMP No. 3 of 2019). On the said application, a co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble High Court passed the following order on 03.01.2019 : “OMP No. 3 of 2019 Notice in aforesaid terms. In the meanwhile, respondents are restrained from interfering in the portion of the suit land comprised khasra Nos. 3612 and 3613, situated at Mohal Patti Sosan Kothi Kanwar, Hasbast No. 40/102, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P., in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs as per jamabandi for the year 2015-16, till further orders. Compliance under Order 39 Rule 3 be ensured within 24 hours.” On 18.01.2019 the co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble High Court passed the following order : “OMP No. 3 of 2019 Reply, if any, be filed on or before the date already fixed. In the meanwhile, Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel makes a statement that non-applicants shall not be interfering over the peaceful possession of the suit land. Learned counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs have also assured the Court that the applicants/plaintiffs shall maintain status quo over the suit land till the next date of hearing.” Ultimately, on 06.03.2019 the co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble High Court passed the following order : “OMP No. 3 of 2019 Vide order dated 3rd January, 2019, respondents have already been restrained from interfering in the portion of the suit land comprised in khasra Nos. 3612 and 3613, situated at Mohal Patti Sasan Kothi Kanwar, Hadbast No. 40/102, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P., in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs as per jamabandi for the year 2015-16, till further orders. Therefore, no fresh restrained order is required to be passed. Respondents are expected to comply with the order. The case was also listed before the Vacation judge on 18th January, 2019, on which date it has been observed that the applicants/plaintiffs shall maintain status-quo over the suit land till next date of hearing i.e. 27th March, 2019. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that on account of aforesaid observations, defendants are not allowed the plaintiffs to use the suit land despite clear title of plaintiffs and which has compelled plaintiffs to file applications i.e. CMPs No. 30 and 426 of 2019 for suitable modification in the order and for police assistance. List for consideration along with OMP Nos. 30 of 2019 and 49 of 2019 on 27th March, 2019.” 2. The defendants (non-applicants in OMP No. 3 of 2019) on 25th March, 2019, filed their written statement alongwith Counter Claim No. 9 of 2019 and refuted the claim of the plaintiffs. The defendants also maintained an application alongwith their written statement and counter claim under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC (OMP No. 86 of 2019) for restraining the plaintiffs (non-applicants in OMP No. 86 of 2019) from alienating, transferring, encumbering, interfering and changing the nature of the land in question in any manner whatsoever either by themselves or their agents, attorneys, heirs etc. during the pendency of the counter claim. 3. Thus, after succinctly narrating the details qua the present case, both OMPs, i.e., 3 and 86 of 2019 are taken up together for consideration and disposal. 4. For the sake of brevity, the parties are being addressed as plaintiffs and defendants, instead of applicants/non-applicants in their respective applications. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, learned Senior Counsel for the defendants and examined the records carefully. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that Shri Mohinder Singh while granting patta (lease) to Shri Karan Singh had retained grazing right with him. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, learned Senior Counsel for the defendants and examined the records carefully. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that Shri Mohinder Singh while granting patta (lease) to Shri Karan Singh had retained grazing right with him. She has further argued that as per the Policy dated 17.11.1993 enacted by the Government, the patta allotted in favour of Shri Karan Singh was regularized and ownership was conferred upon him by the Government. The Government framed the policy after passing of judgment by this Hon’ble Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4 of 1991 and assent of His Excellency President of Indian was also obtained. She has argued that land was developed by Shri Karan Singh and mutation was attested in his name. The plaintiffs are bona fide purchasers of the land and they have purchased the land for huge consideration and in case status quo order is passed against them, the plaintiffs, who have purchased the land after investing huge amount, will suffer irreparable loss. She has argued that defendants have laid challenge to the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs for which they have no locus standi/cause of action to do so and the writ petition has been withdrawn by them and by all the similar persons. She has argued that the suit, which is pending in Civil Court Kullu, has been maintained by the sons and brothers of the present defendants. Lastly, she has argued that even the decision of the learned Financial Commissioner has attained finality and the same is in favour of the seller. In the above backdrop, she has prayed that the defendants be directed not to interfere, in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, personally or through their agents in the suit land and also not to cause any type of obstruction in peaceful use of the suit land till final disposal of the suit. 7. Conversely, the learned Senior Counsel for the defendants has argued that in the year 1957, when District Kullu was part of Punjab, Government enacted The Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1957, and the jagirs came to an end in Kullu so also the rights of jagirdars. He has further argued that on 10th January, 1972, enactment also came in Himachal Pradesh and the rights of jagirdars were abolished. He has further argued that on 10th January, 1972, enactment also came in Himachal Pradesh and the rights of jagirdars were abolished. However, Rai Bhagwant Singh of Kullu continued granting pattas and he challenged the H.P. Act in Hon’ble Supreme Court and interim stay was granted, but the same was vacated on 21st September, 1973. He has argued that in CWP No. 4 of 1991 decided on 13th May, 1991, the Hon’ble Court has only protected those persons under the pattas, who had developed their lands and none else. He has argued that as the seller in the present case, late Shri Karan Singh, had not developed the suit land, which was granted to him by way of patta by his father Shri Mohinder Singh son of Rai Bhagwant Singh, so the right in the suit land got extinct and the sale deed could not have been executed by him and if executed, the same has no force. He has further argued that Shri Mohinder Singh was having grazing rights only in addition to the grazing rights of other persons, as per the policy framed by the Government owing the decision in CWP No. 4 of 1991. It has been argued that as the land was not developed, the State was to take action to get the land back as the land was not covered by the judgment of Court rendered in CWP No. 4 of 1991, as it was not developed by the patta holders. He has argued that mutations have been attested by the authorities in favour of seller Shri Karan Singh without verifying the fact whether the land has been developed on the spot or not. He has argued that as the land is barren forest land and without taking no objection from the relevant quarters, the mutation had been attested. On the above grounds coupled with others taken in the written statement and counter claim, the defendants are seeking that during the pendency of the counter claim, the plaintiffs may be restrained from alienating, transferring, encumbering and interfering and changing the nature of the land in question, measuring 6-12-0 bighas, comprised in khata Khatauni No. 641/904, khasra No. 2612, 2613, kita 2 situated in Phati Sosan, Kothi Kanwara, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P., in any manner whatsoever either by themselves or through their agents, attorneys, heirs etc. 8. 8. At the very outset, it is seen that the plaintiffs have purchased the land for consideration. CWP No. 4 of 1991 was decided on 13.05.1991 and on the basis of judgment rendered in CWP No. 4 of 1991, the Government framed a policy. As per the policy, the lands which were granted under pattas and developed, were protected. The material, which has come on record, demonstrates that the suit land is having an old single storey slate posh house. Thus, the land was developed by the patta holder and it was rightly mutated in the name of the seller, who sold this land to the plaintiffs in the year 2015. The order of the learned Financial Commissioner is also on record and the same has attained finality, as the learned Financial Commissioner refused to review the order of mutation. Civil Writ Petition, which was preferred by the defendants was withdrawn. The following extracted documents demonstrate that regularization was done : “From Tehsildar Kullu To Deputy Commissioner Kullu. No. 48/MC Dated: 17/8/2000 Subject: Regarding Rupi Nautor of Sh. Karan Singh Sir, Jai Hind. In relation to your letter No. 765/Reader Dated 12/7/2000 on the subject cited above, it is submitted that after inspecting the spot it was found that at present Tukra No. 1 and 2 land 6-12 is in cultivable state. According to the report of Girdawar halqua Rupi dated 26/10/1999 and tatima of spot, Tukra No. 1 measuring 4-18 and Tukra No. 2 measuring 1-14 total area 6-12 was found to be in possession of applicant by erecting a stone wall and fencing with double barbed wires along with the road. 14 trees of rubinia and a slate roofed house which is damaged are present on Tukra No. 1 and 4-18 and no tree is present on Tukra No. 2 land 1-14. According to the report of the then Tehsildar Kullu dated 4/9/1992 which is in the file, crop of corn and kidney beans planted by applicant and a slate roofed house was found on the above land. In this way the applicant has very old possession on the said land. Yours faithfully Sd/- Tehsildar Kullu” “Report of spot: Sh. According to the report of the then Tehsildar Kullu dated 4/9/1992 which is in the file, crop of corn and kidney beans planted by applicant and a slate roofed house was found on the above land. In this way the applicant has very old possession on the said land. Yours faithfully Sd/- Tehsildar Kullu” “Report of spot: Sh. Karan Singh S/O Raja Mohender Singh Rupi Palace Kullu has submitted an application that Raja Mohender Singh vide patta Nautor No. 173/1 dated 27/2/68 has granted him Nautor land measuring 29-14 Bigha at Phati Sosan Kothi Kanawar ehsil Kullu. Alongwith this application photocopy of affidavit and Patta Nautor is attached. This application was sent to Kanungo Rupi for spot inspection and report. Kanungo has demarcated the land and found that Sh. Karan singh applicant has possession on 4-18 Bigha area instead of 29-14 Bigha on spot. Raja Rupi has granted this Patta on 27/2/1968 in favour of Sh. Karan Singh. On basis of this Patta, mutation No. 827 dated 9-6-68 was entered at Phati Sosan which was subsequently cancelled on 16-9-71. Sh. Mohender Singh Raja Rupi and his ancestors were Jagirdars of Kothi Kanawar. Hence they are the bartandars of that Kothi for the year 1911-12. Sh. Karan Singh, applicant has paid nazrana at the Rate of 1 per Bigha as mentioned on the patta. Duration of regularization of patta is between 23-1-1960 to 21-9-1973. Sh. Karan Singh was granted this patta on 27-2-1968 which is within this duration/period. On basis of Patta of Sh. Karan Singh, I, inspected the spot and found that 4-18 Bigha land is in possession of Sh. Karan Singh at spot. Presently crop of corn and kidney bean is planted and a small one storeyed house is constructed over that land. There are no fruit trees on this land but 18 trees of rubinia are present. The land revenue of this 4-18 Bigha comes to 0-70 Paise as per settlement record. The possession of applicant Sh. Karan singh on spot is shown as Tukra No. 1 area 4-18 in the Tatima attached herewith. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry and the fact of possession of Sh. The land revenue of this 4-18 Bigha comes to 0-70 Paise as per settlement record. The possession of applicant Sh. Karan singh on spot is shown as Tukra No. 1 area 4-18 in the Tatima attached herewith. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry and the fact of possession of Sh. Karan singh S/O Raja Mohender Singh on Tukra No. 1 measuring 4-18 land revenue 0-70 Paise per year Phati Sosan, the ownership of which was granted vide Patta Nautor No. 173/1 by Raja Rupi on 27-2-68, may be regularized in fvour of Sh. Karan Singh in the revenue record. The original application of Sh. Karan Singh, report of girdawar halqua, statement on affidavit, Patta, copies of Tatima, statement on spot and Tatima on spot are attached for further action. 9. It is also on record that rest of the land has also been given to other persons as nautor. From the documents, it is clear that when the patta was granted by Mohinder Singh to the seller, grazing rights were protected, but later on as per the policy of the Government, land was rightly mutated in the name of the seller, as it was found that he has developed the land and a single storey slate posh old house is there on the suit land. It is also found that the land has been cultivated much earlier. It shows that the land was possessed and developed by the seller. The present plaintiffs have purchased the land for huge consideration. 10. In view of the above, the present plaintiffs cannot be restrained by anyone from using the land, as the land was in exclusive possession of the seller and the land was mutated in the name of the seller in accordance with law, as he was in long possession over the land. This Court also finds that the land has been rightly mutated in the name of the seller, as he was a patta holder since 1968 and the land rightly devolved in his name. Resultantly, the application filed by the plaintiffs is required to be allowed and the defendants are required to be restrained from interfering in the suit land in any manner whatsoever. Resultantly, the application filed by the plaintiffs is required to be allowed and the defendants are required to be restrained from interfering in the suit land in any manner whatsoever. At the same point of time, the defendants have neither right to interfere in the suit land nor they have any prima facie case in their favour for being granted an order of status quo, as they are complete strangers to the suit land. The right they are claiming, i.e., grazing right, is not borne out from the revenue record, as the defendants are completely strangers to the suit land and their claim is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have a prima facie case in their favour and balance of convenience also lies in their favour and this Court also finds that in case the defendants are not restrained from interfering in the suit land the plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss. On the other hand, in case status quo order, as prayed by the defendants, is ordered, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Thus, at this moment, OMP No. 3 of 2019, preferred by the plaintiffs, is allowed and the defendants are restrained from entering, interfering in the suit land in any manner, whatsoever, directly or indirectly, personally or through their agents etc. and the application preferred by the defendants, i.e., OMP No. 86 of 2019 is dismissed. Accordingly, both the applications stand disposed of. 12. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove are limited for the disposal of OMPs No. 3 and 86 of 2019 and shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case.