Civil Revision No.2506 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2506 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: April 20, 2011 Surta .....Petitioner v. Gram Panchayat .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.10046-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.2506 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside orders dated 8.6.2010 and 3.3.2011, Annexures P4 and P5, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Naraingarh and learned Additional District Judge, Amabala, respectively, vide which application for ad interim injunction order filed by petitioner-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as `the Code') was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned courts below. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by present petitioner- plaintiff against respondent-Gram Panchayat on the ground that he has been continuing in cultivating possession of the land in dispute since prior to the year 1986, without specifying as to how he came into possession. It is further contended that defendant intends to interfere in his possession and Civil Revision No.2506 of 2011(O&M) -2- hence, this suit. Alongwith suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was also filed. In reply to that application, plea has been taken by respondent-Gram Panchayat that Gram Panchayat is owner in possession of the land in dispute and that petitioner-plaintiff is having no concern with the same. It is further contended that land used to be auctioned from time to time and in the year 1987-88, plaintiff participated in the auction and he, being highest bidder, was given the said land on lease for one year and thereafter it remained auctioning every year from time to time to different persons and hence, it cannot be said that he is in cultivating possession of the land in dispute. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 8.6.2010, dismissed the application for ad interim injunction order filed on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff by observing as under:- “ A careful reading of jamabandi, Khasra Girdawari and auction proceedings produced on record goes to show that the property was being auctioned to the plaintiff from year to year on the basis of rent and in the beginning in the year 1986 when plaintiff took the property it was given on Chakota of `3350/- which later on increased. Lastly when the property had not been auction in favour of plaintiff, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff. The property is in the ownership of Gram Panchayat and plaintiff had been taking property on lease. Therefore, after expiry of period of lease plaintiff has no right to remain in possession of the property. Therefore, plaintiff has no prima facie case in his favour and balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of plaintiff. No irreparable loss is said to be caused to the plaintiff if injunction is not granted rather loss is said to be caused to Gram Panchayat who is being stopped to auction property in proper manner.” Appeal filed by petitioner-plaintiff against the said order was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court by observing as under:- “11. The facts of this case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the appellant was inducted as a lessee for one year. However, in the year 2007, the suit land was not auctioned in his favour Civil Revision No.2506 of 2011(O&M) -3- by the panchayat. However, appellant managed the entries in the jamabandi in his favour. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gram Panchayat v. Rukari's case (supra) has held that lessee in such circumstances is not entitled to injunction. I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal file be consigned to the record room.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is in settled possession of the land in dispute since the year 1986 and hence, respondent-Gram Panchayat is having no right to disturb his possession, except in due course of law. He has placed reliance upon a number of judgments rendered in Rame Gowda (D) by LRs v. Mr.Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs and another, 2004(1) SCC 769, Naurata Ram v. Ruldu Ram and others, 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 1, Tarsem Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2005(3) PLR 595, Gram Panchayat Dhandrian v. Chanan Singh 1985 PLJ 360, Sadhu Ram v. Gram Panchayat Pastana, 1984 PLJ 217, Parkash Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2002(2) PLJ 237, Ram Bhul and others v. Ram Chand, 2011(1) RCR 668 and, Gram Panchayat, Village Rukari v. Singh Ram, 1998(2) PLR 695. A perusal of orders passed by Courts below shows that they have given sufficient reasons in rejecting the prayer of petitioner-plaintiff for ad interim injunction order. Learned appellate court has also placed reliance upon judgment rendered in Gram Panchayat Village Rukari's case (supra), wherein on the similar facts, injunction was refused. In that case, the period of grant of lease was one year and thereafter he wanted to remain in possession of the same on that basis. However, injunction was refused on the plea that public interest is also one of the material and relevant considerations in either exercising or refusing to grant ad interim injunction. In the present case, as is clear from the impugned orders passed by learned courts below, respondent-Gram Panchayat has placed on record the resolution of Gram Panchayat for the years 2003-2004, 2006-2008 and receipts showing that property in question was auctioned from time to time and sometimes plaintiff and his sons also used to take the same on lease in Civil Revision No.2506 of 2011(O&M) -4- auction proceedings. Petitioner-plaintiff could not succeed in the recent auction of the land, hence he filed the present suit to remain in illegal possession of the Panchayat land, after expiry of the lease period. Plaintiff has also not come with clean hands in the court. He has not even disclosed as to in which manner he came into possession of the land in dispute, what was the lease money, for which period and how he remained in possession in the subsequent years. Law is well settled that a person, who has not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled for ad interim injunction order. In view of the aforementioned facts, the authorities, on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant, are not applicable to the peculiar facts of present case and hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned courts below 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 devoid of any merit. 20.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge