IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 12 of 2010 Reserved on: 20.9.2010 Date of decision: 28.10.2010 Geetan Devi and anr. …. Petitioners Versus The State of H.P & ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioners: Mr.Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Vijay Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 49. _____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 31.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Camp at Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.12/14 of 2009 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiffs’) and affirmed the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur dated 2 13.7.2009 rejecting the application of the plaintiffs for grant of interim relief. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit that they alongwith the brother of the appellant No.2 and the respondents No.8 to 49 are joint owners in possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs alleged that as per the arrangement made between the parties especially the plaintiffs and brother of appellant No.2, the land near the house of the appellants had been allotted to them for their use. It is alleged that the respondents have no right, title or interest in the said land till the same is partitioned. It is further alleged that the respondents are threatening to construct a Panchayat Ghar on the land which has led to the filing of the suit. 3. This suit was contested by the defendants. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs are not in possession of any particular area of the suit land. In fact the stand of the respondents is that the land in question is “Khad Burdi Bramdi”. According to the defendants, the joint land is partitioned following the foggal system. As per this system, the share-holders of the land partitioned the same every three years by 3 draw of lots and as such the possession of the land owners changes every three years and as such no person can claim any specific portion of the joint holding. 4. The petitioners contend that the Panchayat Ghar is being constructed by the respondents on the land which is in their exclusive possession and this land is adjacent to their residential house. However, the petitioners have not placed on record any material whatsoever to show the situation of their residential house vis-à-vis. the land where the Panchayat Ghar is being constructed. The petitioners have also not placed on record any document to show that the disputed land has been allotted to them by way of arrangement made by the co-sharers. Out of the total joint land measuring 633.2 bighas, the share of the two plaintiffs is only 1-13 bighas. The Panchayat Ghar is being constructed for the benefit of all the joint shareholders and all the other co-sharers of the land including the brother of the appellant No.2 have no grievance and they have in writing agreed that the Panchayat Ghar be constructed at the site. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that 4 the plaintiffs have failed to make out any prima facie case for grant of any interim relief. I also find that even if the land is joint, the joint holding is not of the nature where it can actually be partitioned but the joint holding follows the foggal system where every three years, a person is given possession of a different portion. The construction of the Panchayat Ghar is for the benefit of the community and the rights of the plaintiffs will not be in any manner affected in the remaining joint holding. 5. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. October 28, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) (m) Judge