IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 56 of 2011 Date of decision: 7.9.2011 Yaqub Beg and others ….Petitioners. Versus Union of India and others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mrs. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 and 2: Ms. Anita Dogra, CGSC. _____________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) have challenged the orders of the Courts below whereby their application for grant of interim relief has been rejected. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of Shri Gulam Mustafa and according to them late Shri Gulam Mustafa was a non-occupancy tenant over the suit land right from the year 1951-52 onwards. Shri Gulam Mustafa died in the year 2001 and thereafter according to the plaintiffs they are cultivating the suit land. It was only in July 2008 when some army jawans tried to trespass over the land that the petitioners checked the revenue record and found that in the year 1973-74 instead of their father 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Gulam Mustafa one Shri Asfand Yar Khan was recorded to be in possession of the suit land and thereafter in the year 1988-89 in the misal hakiyat the land was entered in the ownership and possession of the Union of India through the Indian Army. The petitioners alongwith the suit filed an application for grant of interim relief praying that the respondents be restrained from interfering in their possession. Both the Courts below rejected the application, hence the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. It has been contended by Mrs. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned counsel for the petitioners, that change in the revenue record made in the year 1988 is not based on any specific order of any revenue authority and that the long standing entries showing the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners to be in possession could not have been interfered with. She, therefore, submits that the learned courts below were wrong in holding that the plaintiffs had failed to make out a prima facie case. 4. This Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot correct errors in the orders of the courts below but can only interfere if there are error of jurisdiction in the orders of the courts below. The finding whether a prima facie case exists or not cannot be said to be an error of jurisdiction. It is not as if the Courts below have not 3 taken into consideration the documents relied upon by the petitioners or the averments made by them. These had been considered and were rejected by the Courts below. At this stage this Court cannot interfere in these findings. Therefore, the petition is rejected. It is, however, made clear that any observations made by the trial Court, the learned Appellate Court or this Court have been made only for the purpose of grant of interim relief and will have no effect whatsoever on the main suit, which must be decided on its own merit. Petition is accordingly rejected. No costs. 7th September, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge.