S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No 2304/07 Ridmal Singh & ors. vs. Municipal Board, Pilibanga. 1 S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No 2304/07 Ridmal Singh & ors. vs. Municipal Board, Pilibanga. Date of Order: 25.9.2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. H.S. Sidhu for the for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Joshi for the respondent. ... Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellants' injunction application was dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 6.10.2007. Hence the appellants have preferred this appeal. In the appeal, the interim order was passed by this Court as back as on 11.10.2007 directing the respondent not to demolish the houses involved in the suit. The record of the trial court was called and it appears that the suit was registered only on 24.9.2007 and the defendant was served and the written statement was filed. The issues were framed and even the plaintiffs' evidence completed on 22.7.2008. That shows that the suit proceeded much more faster than expected and the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the property in question was S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No 2304/07 Ridmal Singh & ors. vs. Municipal Board, Pilibanga. 2 purchased by registered sale-deed from the erstwhile ruler of the Bikaner in the year 1957. According to the appellants- plaintiffs, their houses and petrol pumps are situated in the land in dispute and they are living in the houses since 1957 or just thereafter and thereby they are in possession of the property in dispute since last about 50 years by now. The trial court was of the view that the Division Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO.4477/07 directed the Municipal Council to remove all encroachments falling within the road boundary and, therefore, that is a relevant aspect while considering the prayer for the appellants. The trial court was of the view that in power of attorney, there is mention that the power has been given to sell the quarters of Shikarkhana (premises), whereas the power of attorney sold the big land and which was not of erstwhile ruler. Therefore, the trial court dismissed the injunction application of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the property in the name Shikarkhana is entered in the list of priviate property of the erstwhile ruler but its measurement is only 285 sq.yards, whereas it is the case of the plaintiffs that S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No 2304/07 Ridmal Singh & ors. vs. Municipal Board, Pilibanga. 3 they have purchased thousands of yards of land. In view of the above reason, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the trial court rightly held that no case is made out by the appellants for grant of injunction. The learned counsel for the respondents also pointed out that the Division Bench judgment of this Court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court as the SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, after rejection of the Review Petition No. 1940/07 by the Division Bench of this Court. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the original record of the suit. As observed above, presently the suit is fixed for evidence of the defendant and there is only one defendant who is respondent. The suit can be decided in very short period and even within a period of six months, because of the reason that the plaintiff's evidence was closed in very short period by examining the plaintiff's total witnesses. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that there is direction to remove the encroachments made on the part of the road is concerned, that is true that no encroachment on any S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No 2304/07 Ridmal Singh & ors. vs. Municipal Board, Pilibanga. 4 part of the road can be allowed but, admittedly, in the Public Interest Litigation, the appellants were not party and their case is that they are in possession of the property since 1957 by virtue of sale-deed. It is not in dispute that the appellants are in possession of the property in dispute. The power of attorney is placed on record starts with the following relevant words “I am owner of the premises known as Shikarkhana Quarter at Pilibanga (District Ganganagar) and whereas I have decided to sell the said premises and ........” In the schedule appended within the power of attorney itself, following language has been used- “Schedule of property proposed for sale above referred to:- The plot of land known as Shikarkhana Quarter and situated at Pili Bangan bounded on the North by Government Open Lan, on the South by Government open land and Police Chowki beyond, on the East by open Government land and on the West by open Government land.” In the schedule mentioned in the power of attorney, there is a mention of “plot of land” and in the first part, as mentioned above, word has been used for the property as “premises” as well as “Quarter”. The documents requires consideration and that could be done after evidence. S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No 2304/07 Ridmal Singh & ors. vs. Municipal Board, Pilibanga. 5 Now another aspect of the matter is that when the appellants came in possession and if they came in possession about 50 years ago and raised their houses over the land, then according to the respondents, master plan was framed for the area in question/for the town, then there may arise question that merely by virtue of framing the master plan, all lands falling within the proposed master plan and covered by the road shown in that, automatically stands vested in the Government or the Municipal Board. These issues can be well decided after full trial and evidence. It is true that the directions issued by the Division Bench are binding upon the Municipal Board but the Division Bench nowhere said that the rights of the persons, if they are legal then they will stand extinguished and if the appellants are found not trespassers even then they can be removed. Looking to the peculiar facts of the case, suit is at the stage of recording the evidence of defendant and that too the sole defendant, then there is no reason to dispossess the appellants at this stage, as in the suit of the year 2007, the respondent could not remove the appellants from possession upto the month of September, S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No 2304/07 Ridmal Singh & ors. vs. Municipal Board, Pilibanga. 6 2008, then they can wait for further period of only six months. In view of the above reason, the appeal of the appellants is allowed. The respondents are restrained from evicting the plaintiffs from the property in dispute till the decision of the suit. The trial court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of record before the court below. Since the record has been called by this Court, therefore, the office is directed to sent the record forthwith and both the parties are directed to to appear before the trial court on 14.10.2008 after Dashera Break. It is made clear that on that day, the defendant- respondent will be free to produce the evidence and the appellant shall not seek time on the ground that this is the first date for appearance in the court. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt