IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.R.No.131 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.1.2009 Gurdial Singh and others ......Petitioner(s) Versus Haryana State through District Collector, Fatehabad and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. K.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl.A.G, Haryana for the respondents. JASWANT SINGH,J(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order dated 14.9.2007 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Ratia and order dated 4.12.2008 passed by District Judge, Fatehabad whereby an application U/o 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs for grant of interim/temporary injunction was dismissed and the order was affirmed in appeal respectively. It is the case of the petitioners that their grand-father namely Labh Singh was allotted the land by the Custodian Department on 30.6.1959. Somehow, it transpired that excess land had been allotted to him and as a result, on 12.6.1997, the allotment of excess land was cancelled by the competent authority. The order was challenged by the plaintiffs by filing a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed on 24.11.2004 and no appeal was filed against that order. After the previous judgment and decree had become final qua the suit land, petitioners-plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration that they are in peaceful possession/cultivation as gair marusi with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants-State for restraining them from C.R.No.131 of 2009 (O&M) #2# evicting the petitioners forcibly. Vide two impugned orders, interim/temporary injunction has been declined on the ground that on account of earlier dismissal of suit, the principle of resjudicata is applicable and the relief was declined. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if they are dispossessed/evicted only by following the due process of law. He further states that the petitioners shall withdraw the pending suit filed by them, in case this protection is granted to them. Shri Anil Rathee, Addl.A.G, Haryana appearing for the State of Haryana states that he has no objection to this contention. He very fairly states that though the possession of the petitioners-plaintiffs is unauthorized since 1997 but they shall not be dispossessed/evicted except in due course of law. In view of the agreed stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, the impugned orders are modified to the extent that the petitioners shall not be evicted/dispossessed except in due course of law. Disposed of. January 19, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE