C.R.No.5001 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OFPUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDAIGRH C.R.No.5001 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.8.2010 Habitant Buildcon Private Limited and others ..... petitioners v. Mewa Singh and others .......Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. Present: Mr.Alok Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners -- RAKESH KUMAR GARG,J C.M.No.199970-CII of 2010. Allowed subject to just exceptions and for the purpose of this petition only and it will be open to the respondents to raise any legal objection available to them in accordance with law to challenge the locus of M/S Alpha G.Corp Development Private Ltd. to implead them as defendant No.5 in place of M/s Marvel Buildtech Private Limited in the suit or any other appropriate proceedings. C.R.No.5001 of 2010 Respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from changing the nature of suit property on the averments that the suit property was reserved as Gair Mauri Rasta/Gali and Khal for the welfare of the entire inhabitants of the village during consolidation of holding proceedings. Defendants purchased certain land in village Baldi Tehsil and District Karnal from various landowners through various sale deeds in order to establish residential colony over the suit property. It was further averred that the defendants by taking undue advantage of being C.R.No.5001 of 2010 2 purchasers of the land in the same village, were bent upon to encroach the suit property by changing its nature. Upon notice, defendants filed a joint reply taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit and locus standi etc. On merits, it was averred that plaintiffs have already sold their interest in the suit property, and thus, were having no right or interest in the same. It was further averred by the petitioners that they are not making any encroachment upon the suit property and in fact they got the scheme approved for purposes of obtaining licence for conversion of land into residential quarters as per the scheme of real estates. Defendants were permitted to make necessary changes by way of renovation and the same will not be against the interest of the inhabitants of village Badli. It was prayed that the suit and the stay application be dismissed. While allowing the application for grant of ad interim injunction, Civil Judge (Junior Division),Karnal, observed as under:- “ The applicant-plaintiff has sought indulgence of this Court for restraining the respondent-defendants from encroaching upon suit property and further be restrained from changing the nature of suit property. It is pertinent to mention here that suit land was reserved as Gair Mum Rasta and Khal for the villagers during consolidation of holding proceedings and same is further substantiated by Jamabandi of year 2001- 2002 on record. It is not out to place mention here that Defendant-Respondent has not placed any evidence on record to prove their ownership or possession over the suit property. Moreover, Defendant-Respondent has clandestinely not disclosed the specific land they have purchased in village Baldi over which they are to raise residential clandestinely not disclosed the specific land they have purchased in village Baldi C.R.No.5001 of 2010 3 over which they are to raise residential colony. From perusal of record it is observed that Plaintiff-Applicant has successfully proved their prima facie case by placing on record Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 pertaining to suit property, clearly showing specific khewat numbers, khasra numbers, in which rasta and Khal exists. Balance of convenience is also lies in his favour and irreparable injury will be caused to them if injunction is not granted to them”. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order, defendants filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court. It is relevant to mention that petitioners suffered a statement before the lower Appellate Court on 1.4.2010 which reads as under:- “Statement of ShriAtulGarg, aged 34,Senior Manager Technical, Alpha G.Corp Development Private Limited,Karnal on SA. The revenue rasta falling in the Alpha InternationalCity and other defendants Sector 28 and 39 Urban Estate,Karnal shall be kept free for circulation/movement. However, the defendants will renovate and improve the same. The right of user of these revenue rasta will not be obstructed qua its use as rasta by the company.” Counsel for the plaintiff-respondents agreed to the aforesaid statement. Hence, the injunction granted qua rastas shown in the revenue record was vacated. However, there was no agreement with regard to the use of khals. While disposing of the appeal the lower Appellate Court observed that as per the revenue record Gair Marusi Khal and Rastas were in existence in many khasra numbers and the petitioners have no right to interfere in the same and affirmed the order of the trial Courts in this regard. C.R.No.5001 of 2010 4 Not satisfied with the aforesaid order the defendants are before this Court in the present revision challenging the aforesaid orders. The petitioners have also raised grievance against his recording of statement dated 1.4.2010 vide Annexure P11. On the basis of the documents placed on record, it has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been granted licence to develop residential colony in the area as per the policy of the State Government according to which petitioner-company is entitled to purchase the land in dispute from the competent authority and in fact they have already moved in this direction. It was further argued that since the defendants have already sold their entire land they are not having any locus to file the present suit and, therefore, ad interim injunction cannot be granted in their favour.It was further submitted that in fact the petitioners have already undertaken that the revenue rastas falling in the residential colony developed by them shall be kept in circulation and movement and right of user of these revenue rastas will not be obstructed qua its use. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders and various documents placed on record of the case. Admittedly gair mumkin rastas and khals exist in the area being developed for a residential colony by the petitioners. It is not in dispute that petitioners have only purchased the land belonging to the respondents and they have not purchased/acquired the land falling under the revenue rastas and khals etc. Thus they have no right to use the aforesaid khals/rastas etc. Whether petitioners are entitled to purchase the aforesaid land or change the user of the same as per the policy of the Government or whether they can C.R.No.5001 of 2010 5 put obstruction in the use of the aforesaid rastas/khals which are going beyond the area purchased by them is yet to be determined, and this can only be decided by taking evidence. The claim of petitioners on the basis of the documents attached with the revision petition is yet to be tested by the trial Court after taking evidence. If the petitioners are aggrieved in any manner from the statement recorded on 1.4.2010 vide Annexure P11, they are at liberty to seek an appropriate remedy in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the trial Court in exercise of its discretionary powers. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within one year from today. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge August 26, 2010 rk