C.R. No.4374 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4374 of 2010 Date of decision:07.12.2010 Nanu Ram ...Petitioner Versus Improvement Trust, Karnal ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the orders passed by the Courts below dated 29.01.2010 and 05.06.2010 by which application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] has been dismissed. The learned First Appellate Court dismissed the application by observing as under: - “9. After having heard both sides I find no merit in any of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is an admitted fact that the mutation No.12911 in respect of the suit land has already been entered and sanctioned in favour of the respondent- defendant on 24.11.1986 and thereafter the subsequent revenue record is showing the respondent-defendant as owner of the suit land. The respondent-defendant placed on record the jamabandi for the year 1994-95 and 1999-2000 and the Khasra Girdawari for the year 1995 to 2000 which show that the respondent-defendant is owner in possession of the suit land. The application for C.R. No.4374 of 2010 -2- **** correction of khasra girdawari filed by the appellant has already been dismissed by the Assistant Collector II Grade, Karnal vide order dated 01.09.2006. There is nothing on file to show that the aforesaid order has been challenged by the appellant before the appellate authority or ever set aside. The respondent- defendant are carrying out the brick lining of the Mugal Canal in the public interest. Thus, keeping in view the larger interest of the public, the appellant/plaintiff cannot be allowed to create obstruction in the development work. So far as the demarcation report is concerned, it has been mentioned therein that the appellant is in possession of the suit land and he has planted mango and guava trees over the same. The revenue official who conducted this demarcation report was not authorized to ascertain the possession of the suit land. His job was to simply demarcate the suit land. There is nothing in the said report that how the official conducting the demarcation came to know that the fruit trees were planted by the appellant. The appellant is neither recorded as owner nor is in possession of the suit land in the revenue record after sanctioning of mutation No.12911. Thus, the learned court below has rightly observed that no prima facie case is made out in favour of the appellant and no balance of convenience also tilts in his favour.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Courts below have erred in dismissing the application for temporary injunction though the plaintiff/petitioner is in actual physical possession of the suit property. He has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Tarsem Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2005(3) RCR(Civil) 645. I have learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. The aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the present case C.R. No.4374 of 2010 -3- **** because that would apply to a person who is found to be in possession, whereas the finding recorded by the Courts below is that the plaintiff/petitioner is neither recorded as owner nor in possession of the suit property and as such has no prima facie right in his favour in order to seek temporary injunction. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present case and as such the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. December 07, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE