Civil Revision No.2355 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2355 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: April 8, 2011 Mohan Singh .....Petitioner v. Zile Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sushil Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.9570-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.2355 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 8.2.2011, Annexure P4, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, in the appeal filed by respondents-appellants no.1 to 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned courts below. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that present petitioner-plaintiff alongwith Haramjit Singh-respondent no.6, his son, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining respondents no.1 to 5 including Gram Panchayat Mangra and BD&PO Guhla, from taking the land in dispute in their exclusive possession for the purpose of cultivation and agriculture purpose etc. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil procedure (hereinafter to be called as `the Code') for ad interim injunction order was also filed, which was decided by learned trial Court restraining defendants from using the land in Civil Revision No.2355 of 2011(O&M) -2- dispute for the purpose other than occupation of the Kumhar community by observing as under:- “4. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit with the averments that the land measuring 19 kls 0 ml comprised in khewat no.86 min, khatoni no.23 min. khasra no.98,99, is situated within the revenue estate of village, Mangra, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal as per jamabandi for the year 1961-62 and this land was reserved for the common purposes during consolidation for the benefit of all the residents of village and the same is being used as such by all the inhabitants of the village including the plaintiffs. Respondents/defendants no.1 to 5 in collusion with each other are threatening to take the suit land in their exclusive possession by way of cultivating the same illegally and forcibly and threatening to change the nature and user of the suit land with a view to deprive the plaintiffs and others of their rights to use the suit land for the common purposes. The plaintiffs have placed on record copy of `scheme istemal' and perusal of which shows that the khasra no.98 is left for `Panjawa' and khasra no.99 was kept reserved for `kumhar community'. The plaintiffs have also placed on record jamabandi for the year 2006-07 and perusal of which shows that the land measuring 11 kls 0 ml is gair mumkin kumharan which falls in khasra no.99 and the land measuring 8 kls 0 ml is meant for gair mumkin kumharan comprising in khasra no.98 and the land measuring 14 mls is meant for kumharwan comprising in khasra no.104 and as per column no.V of jamabandhi, which is kept reserved for Mukbuja Kumharan. 5. In written statement, the defendants no.1 to 3 have admitted the facts that the suit land was allotted to Kumhar community and the suit land was left during consolidation for use and occupation of the Kumhar community and the plaintiffs and other inhabitants of the village have no right, title or interest in the suit property. However, the ownership Civil Revision No.2355 of 2011(O&M) -3- of the suit land vests in the Gram Panchayat. Since, the defendants themselves have admitted that during consolidation the suit land was kept for use and occupation of the Kumhar community, hence, the plaintiffs have prima facie case, balance of convenience lies in their favour and they will suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted. The present petitioner-plaintiff did not file any appeal against the said order, which shows that he was satisfied with the said order. However, respondents-defendants no.1 to 3 filed appeal against the said order, which was disposed of by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, by modifying the said order by observing as under:- 7. The order passed by the learned trial Court does not convey any sense and prima facie the order passed by the learned trial Court is vague. The grant of injunction is a serious matter and the powers are not to be exercised in routine. The orders passed by the Courts must be clear as to what the Court wants to convey but in the present case the order which has been passed by the learned trial Court does not convey any sense. The appellants had maintained before the trial Court that they are Kumhar by caste and the learned trial Court while passing impugned order has categorically observed that the part of the suit land was reserved for Panjava (small brick kiln) and rest of the land was reserved for use by Kumhar community. The trial Court has lost sight of the fact that the plaintiffs/respondents no.1 and 2 are neither Kumhar community. The trial Court has lost sight of the fact that the plaintiffs/respondents no.1 and 2 are neither Kumhar nor they are interested in Panjava. The first question which comes in the mind of the Court is as to what locus standi the plaintiffs have got to bring the present suit. The averments made in the plaint compel this Court to lay down that because of political rivalry into the village, the present suit has been filed. As has been observed by the learned trial Court that the suit land was meant for Kumhar community Civil Revision No.2355 of 2011(O&M) -4- and the present appellants being Kumhar are competent and entitled to use the land as the same was reserved for them only during consolidation proceedings. The scheme istemal prepared during the consolidation proceedings does not show anywhere as to for what purpose the Kumhars will be using the suit land reserved during consolidation proceedings. Once the appellants are Kumhars, they are entitled to use the suit land. However, it is made clear that if there exists a Panjawa over the suit land than it will not be disturbed during the pendency of the suit but remaining part of the land may be used by the appellants in any manner.” The dispute is regarding khasra nos.98 and 99. Even as per revenue record produced by petitioner-plaintiff, khasra no.98 was left for `Panjawa', i.e., for the use of `Kumhar community' and khasra no.99 was also kept reserved for `Kumhar community'. The present petitioner-plaintiff is prima facie having no right in the land in dispute. Rather there are allegations that in the garb of filing of the suit, he has obstructed the common passage of the village by raising some construction. The aforementioned order passed by learned appellate Court is based on documentary evidence, i.e., revenue record regarding the property in dispute and hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being Civil Revision No.2355 of 2011(O&M) -5- devoid of any merit. However, it is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed to have any bearing on the decision of this case on merits by learned trial Court. 8.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge