IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.654 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 17.03.2008 State of Haryana and others ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.R.S.Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. vs. Mohan Lal and others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.A.K.Kansal, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.5.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jind whereby the petitioner-State and its Authorities have been restrained from interfering in possession of the respondents over the suit land and they have been further restrained from auctioning and/or re-allotting the suit land to any other person till the final decision of the suit, as well as against the judgment dated 19.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jind, upholding the above-stated order of the learned trial Court. Notice of motion was issued and as an interim measure, the respondents were restrained from alienating the suit land. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. C.R. No.654 of 2006 -2- One of the vital issues which is likely to go to the root of the matter is as to whether the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondents, in view of specific bar contained in Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. However, without adverting to the jurisdictional issue, the learned Civil Court has granted injunction in favour of the respondents. It further appears that a self-speaking order dated 7.9.2001 was passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner whereby the allotment made in favour of the respondents had been set aside after holding that the same was obtained fraudulently. If that is so, the question as to whether or not the respondents have made out a prima-facie case, also requires reconsideration by the Civil Court. Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to re-decide the injunction application afresh in accordance with law and keeping in view Section 24(4) and Section 36 of the Act. Till then, while the petitioners shall not interfere in the physical possession of the respondents over the suit land, the respondents shall also remain restrained from alienating and/or creating any charge over the same. The application shall be decided within a period of two months. Disposed of. March 17, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE