Civil Revision No.5393 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5393 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 15, 2011 Pawan Kumar and others .....Petitioners v. Bachni Devi and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the petitioners. ....... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.21518-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5393 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 17.11.2009, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, Annexure P2, vide which application filed by petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for ad interim injunction order was dismissed and order dated 22.4.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, Annexure P3, vide which appeal filed against the said order dated 17.11.2009 was also dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including orders passed by learned Courts below. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that petitioners-plaintiffs filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining Civil Revision No.5393 of 2011(O&M) -2- respondents-defendants-Gram Panchayat from illegally and forcibly dispossessing them from the land in dispute. However, as per stand taken by the Gram Panchayat in the written statement, Gram Panchayat is proceeding in accordance with law to remove unauthorised possession of the petitioners-plaintiffs by serving notices under Sections 24(1) and 24(2) of the Panchayati Raj Act. Even present petitioners-plaintiffs had not denied having received the said notices. Admittedly, respondents-Gram Panchayat is the owner of the property in dispute and the Gram Panchayat is proceeding as per law to seek possession of the premises in dispute from the present petitioners-plaintiffs from their unauthorised possession. Courts below have rightly placed reliance upon Mohan Lal v. Mohan Singh 1996(1) CCC 30 (P&H) wherein this Court observed that where any attempt is made by an individual or a group of individuals to misappropriate/misuse or otherwise interfere with the enjoyment of public property by the people in general, the courts have to be extremely cautious in granting injunction in favour of such persons only on the ground that they are in possession of the property. Possession of public property by such an individual or a group of individuals is no possession in the eyes of law. Such a person cannot claim any right whatsoever on the basis of unlawful occupation of the public property. In the present case as well, petitioners -plaintiffs are in unauthorised possession of the property owned by Gram Panchayat. Gram Panchayat is proceedings as per law. Hence, petitioners-plaintiffs have no right to seek injunction against Gram Panchayat. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any Civil Revision No.5393 of 2011(O&M) -3- illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned orders 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, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, it is made clear that nothing observed in this order shall be having any bearing on the decision of this case by learned trial Court on merit. 15.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge