Civil Revision No. 3903 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 3903 of 2011 Date of Decision: 7.7.2011 Gopal …Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat, Niyajalpur …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the orders dated 29.9.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul and dated 6.4.2011, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Narnaul, whereby the prayer for ad interim injunction, restraining the Gram Panchayat from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner, was declined. The Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, in its order dated 29.9.2010 (Annexure P1) held that earlier in an inter- se litigation, pending between the parties, the Sub Judge Ist Class, Narnaul, on 27.10.1977, had ordered eviction of present petitioner from the suit land. Learned counsel submits that it is an admitted case of the respondent-Gram Panchayat Niyajalpur that the petitioner/plaintiff was Civil Revision No. 3903 of 2011 2 inducted as a tenant in the year 1992. The trial Judge had declined the relief primarily on the ground that the factum of earlier litigation was not disclosed and it is nowhere stated by the petitioner that he again participated in the auction and was re-inducted as a tenant in the year 1992. Taking the conduct of the petitioner into consideration, the relief, prayed for, was declined to him. In the appeal, the Court of Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide its order dated 6.4.2011 (Annexure P2), dismissed the appeal by giving the following observations:- a) That the petitioner/plaintiff has not been able to place on record any document to substantiate his assertion that he is in cultivating possession of the suit land in the year 2010 or immediately prior thereto. b) That neither any jamabandi nor khasra girdawari/nehari girdawari/abiana receipt etc. were produced by the petitioner/plaintiff, to infer his possession over the suit land. c) That from the photocopy of auction proceedings held in the year 2010, placed on the record by the respondent/Gram Panchayat, it is evident that the suit property has been auctioned in favour of Rang Lal, Ram Kumar and Ganpat and they are in possession of the same. d) That even otherwise, in the year 1992, auction was for the period of one year. By way of auction, the petitioner was inducted as a tenant only for a period Civil Revision No. 3903 of 2011 3 of one year. Since no prima facie evidence was coming forward regarding the possession of the petitioner over the suit land, both the Cours below have rightly declined the prayer for ad interim injunction. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 7, 2011 “DK”