CRP 33/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. SARMA C.R.P. No. 33/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. SARMA 7.2. 2007 Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is filed challenging the legality and validity of the jud gment and order passed in Misc. Appeal No. 23/2006 dated 8-1-2007 by the lear ned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamrup thereby rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Challenging the order in injunction petition passed in Misc. (J) case No. 217/2006 dated 28-6-2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junio r Division),No. 2, Guwahati. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted Title Suit 318/2006 inter-alia pr aying for permanent injunction, ejectment of the defendant from the suit premis es and further declaration that the action of the defendant in constructing drai ns in question is illegal and void of jurisdiction. The facts of the case disclo se that defendant i.e PWD authorities have undertaken the work for development o f Bijoy Nagar Dakhala road by strengthening the market portion including provisi on of an open pucca drain and cross culverts in the general areas. The grievance s of the petitioner is that the drains proposed to be constructed, falls within the patta land of the petitioner and as such the defendant i.e the PWD authoriti es had no authority to construct the same by encroaching into the patta land wit hout acquiring the land under the provision of law. The learned trial court afte r the relevant considerations, rejected the prayer for injunction and the learne d appellate court also maintained the said order. The interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India again on such concurrent findings of both the courts below are rather res trictive. The learned courts below rejected the prayer of injunction upon releva nt considerations of the issue involved. The state being the ultimate owner of t he land, the petitioner who is the patta holder/lessee in respect of the said la nd is bound to follow the terms of the lease. The proposed construction of the r oad and the drain is for the greater interest of the public at large. Whatever t he grievances the petitioner can very well be urged at the time of hearing of th e suit. I find no justification in interfering with the impugned order in exerci sing the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when the courts b elow refused to grant such discretionary order on relevant consideration. However on the submission made by Mr. Sarma that in passing of the impug ned order by the learned courts below pertains to the finding on the merit of th e suit which has been arrived at certain finding on the merit of the suit that m ay prejudice to him in final determination of the suit, it is made clear that on none findings on the merits of the suit that has been arrived at in passing the impugned order would be considered at the final hearing of the suit and the sui t is to be decided upon the proved facts that might emerge during the course of the trial after recording necessary evidence. Subject to the aforesaid observations this revision petition stands dism issed. JUDGE arup