Civil Revision No.518 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.518 of 2009 Date of Decision:21.04.2009 Panchayat Samiti ....petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Jasdeep Singh,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Rajesh Garg, Additional Advocate General, Punjab **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the orders dated 19.10.2007 and 13.09.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Sardulgarh and Additional District Judge, Mansa, respectively, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from forcibly dispossessing the petitioner from the land in dispute, has been dismissed. As per the averments in this petition, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner illegally and forcibly on the averments that the provincial Government was the owner of the land in dispute and vide notification dated 17.05.1950, the aforesaid land vested in the Gram Panchayat, Sardulgarh. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Gram Panchayat, Sardugarh donated the suit property to the petitioner vide Civil Revision No.518 of 2009 2 resolution dated 30.10.1996 and since then the petitioner is owner in possession of the land and in the revenue record also the possession of the land is recorded in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is using the property in dispute and now the Nagar Panchayat has come into existence in place of Gram Panchayat, Sardulgarh and respondent-defendant Nos.2 and 3 want to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the property in dispute. Along with this suit, the petitioner also filed an application for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from forcibly dispossessing the petitioner. The aforesaid application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Courts below vide impugned orders on the ground that the Gram Panchayat, Sardulgarh had no power to alienate the suit land challenging the aforesaid orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Courts below have failed to take into consideration that in the revenue record the possession of the petitioner has been recorded and thus the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner and he was entitled to protect his possession during the pendency of the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Undisputedly, the claim of the petitioner to the ownership of the land in dispute is on the basis of a resolution dated 30.10.1996 which was passed by Gram Panchayat, Sardugarh. However, the erstwhile Gram Panchayat, Sardulgarh was not competent to alienate the land. Even in the notification on the basis of which the land has vested in the Gram Panchayat, it is mentioned that the Municipal Committee/Gram Panchayat shall have no power to alienate the property permanently. Under the provisions of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 a Gram Panchayat has no power to dispose of the immovable property without prior approval of the State Government. Admittedly, no prior approval of the State Government in this case was obtained. So, vide above said resolution, it cannot be prima Civil Revision No.518 of 2009 3 facie said that plaintiff was owner of the suit property. It is well settled that injunction cannot be issued in favour of a tresspasser and against a true owner. In view of the aforesaid, the Courts below rightly dismissed the application for ad interim injunction. Moreover, the ad interim injunction has been refused by the trial Court in its discretion. No perversity has been shown in the exercise of the aforesaid discretion by the Courts below. Thus, no ground is made out to interfere in the discretion exercised by the Courts below. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 21.04.2009 neenu