Civil Revision No.5402 of 2008(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.5402 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on : August 03, 2009 Bachan Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS Secretary, Punjab Marketing Board, Chandigarh and others ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for Mr.Sushil Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for Mr.Gurmail Singh Harike, Adv. For respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Surender Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Pb. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This petition is directed against the order dated 17.3.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Batala and the order dated 12.6.2008 passed by Additional District Judge(Adhoc), Gurdaspur, whereby, both the courts have dismissed the application of the plaintiff - petitioner (herein referred as `the plaintiff') for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants - respondents (herein referred as `the defendants') from interfering in his possession over the suit land, fully described in the heading of the plaint. It was urged that the plaintiff was the owner of 85 Kanals 9 Marlas of land, out of which 60 Kanal was acquired by the defendants for construction of grain market and the remaining land measuring 25 Kanal 9 Civil Revision No.5402 of 2008(O&M) [ 2 ] Marlas is in possession of the plaintiff, which was never acquired, nor any compensation was ever paid for it. Thus, it was prayed that the defendants be restrained from taking possession of the suit land i.e. 25 Kanals 9 Marlas. The averments of the defendants are that the land measuring 245 Kanals 18 Marlas was acquired for the establishment of the New Grain Market, Qadian, the award of which had been announced on 19.5.1993. The plaintiff had received the awarded compensation and admitted its correctness. The mutation regarding the suit land was sanctioned in favour of the State and another chunk of land i.e. 74 Kanal 06 Marlas was acquired vide notification dated 25.5.1990 and 13.5.1996. Both the courts below have refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Heard. Having examined the impugned orders and considered the arguments, it transpires that only contention raised by the plaintiff is that the defendant have not paid the entire compensation amount, whereas, the defendants have averred that the suit land had already been acquired, mutation sanctioned in their favour and the award has been satisfied. In such circumstances, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred, therefore, no injunction could be granted. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. August 03, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE