IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 27792-CII of 2010 in/and Civil Revision No. 7084 of 2010 Date of decision: January 31, 2011 Palo Devi .. Petitioner Vs. Gram Panchayat, Jhansa .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J This petition assails the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, accepting the appeal of the defendant- respondent (herein referred as, 'the respondent') and declining the application of ad-interim injunction filed by the plaintiff- petitioner (herein referred as, 'the petitioner'). The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of a bara as detailed in the head note of the plaint measuring 37' x 45'. She has alleged that she had raised construction on the eastern and southern side of the bara and the remaining 3 boundaries are having barbed wire and trees. She has been using this bara for tethering the cattle and storing the cow dung cakes. The respondent- Gram Panchayat is forcibly dispossessing her from the suit property. Upon notice, the respondent appeared and filed written statement and reply to the application wherein it was averred that the alleged bara is not in possession of the petitioner. She has not raised any construction there over. There exists no cow dung cakes, no gohara, chhapper, khurli or trees etc. as alleged by her. As such, she is not entitled to grant of any such injunction. The trial court recorded the findings in favour of the petitioner whereas, the first appellate court observed otherwise. Having heard the rival contentions, learned counsel for the respondent has re-iterated the argument that the suit property is a part of Civil Revision No. 7084 of 2010 -2- *** Sukha Talab (dry pond) bearing abadi No.877 which is used for common purposes of the villagers and on part of the land there is a proposal for construction of Chaupal for the use of the inhabitants of the village. It was urged that Palo Devi is living in well furnished house and she is not in possession of the site in dispute. Even otherwise, the petitioner has set up her claim of possession over the property stating that she prepares cow dung cakes and tethers the cattle in the site in dispute. Such sort of temporary installations cannot be taken as evidence of possession. The Gram Panchayat is prima facie proved to be the owner of the suit property. It is well settled by now that no injunction can be granted against the true owner. Similar observations were made in case Ram Sarup v. Gram Panchayat 2000 (3) Latest Judicial Reports 401. To the contrary, the petitioner has failed to show any document or title in order to establish prima facie case in her favour. As such, she is not entitled to any injunction as prayed for. Dismissed. January 31, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge