Civil Revision No.4512 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4512 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 22, 2010 Ram Chander ….Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat ….Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Ms. Sharmila Sharma, for the petitioner. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is plaintiff’s revision petition challenging the impugned orders, whereby his application for grant of ad interim injunction during the pendency of the suit for protecting his possession has been dismissed. Thus, at the most assuming that the petitioner is in possession of the suit land as alleged the same is unauthorized. While rejecting the prayer of the petitioner the Courts below have found that prima facie the petitioner could not prove his case as the suit land which admittedly, belongs to respondent-Gram Panchayat was being let out in open auction every year. As per the documents produced by the petitioner on record, the aforesaid land was let out to him for one year i.e. in the year 1981 and in the subsequent years the suit land was let out to others. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned orders vehemently argued that even if , the possession of the petitioner is unauthorized, the petitioner is entitled to protect the same during the pendency of the suit, and can be evicted only in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of her case has relied upon - Civil Revision No.4512 of 2010 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu and another, 2004(1) SCC-769. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. However, I find no merit in this petition, the facts of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda case were different, as in that case there was a dispute with regard to the title of the defendant, whereas in the present case there is no dispute of the title of the defendant-Gram Panchayat. Distinguishing the aforesaid facts in Rame Gowda’s case this Court in the judgment of Sukhwant Singh Vs. Divisional Forest Officer 2009(3) PLR-432 has held that no injunction can be issue at the asking of a trespasser and against the true owner. Thus, I find no merit in the present petition. Dismissed. 22.07.2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vcgarg JUDGE -