IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7876 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 22, 2011. Sukhjit Singh and another. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat, village Pindi Balochan. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.S.Bhullar, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 27.10.2009, Annexure P5 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Faridkot and subsequent order dated 01.09.2010, Annexure P6 passed by learned District Judge, Faridkot dismissing CR No.7876 of 2010 application of petitioners-plaintiffs for ad-interim injunction order filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned courts below. There is no dispute that land in dispute belongs to respondent – Gram Panchayat. However, plea has been taken by present petitioner- plaintiff that he had exchanged the said land with his own land with Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat and that the exchange was also approved by Additional Deputy Commissioner and that since the day of exchange, petitioner-plaintiff has been continuing in possession of the land in dispute. It is also contended that mutation of exchange was also sanctioned in favour of petitioners- plaintiffs. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for respondent-Gram Panchayat that the alleged exchange of Panchayat land was effected by previous Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat in connivance with the present petitioners. It is also contended that though the said exchange was approved in writing by Additional Deputy Commissioner and however, when the fact that the land belonging to Gram Panchayat is of much superior quality than the land of present petitioners-plaintiffs, he cancelled the said exchange. It is further contended that moreover possession of the land in dispute was never handed over to present petitioners even after sanctioning of mutation and before cancelling the mutation. It is also contended that the land is being leased out by respondent-Gram Panchayat to different persons 2 CR No.7876 of 2010 in auction and that latest lease is in favour of one Sarwan Singh and that he is in possession of the same as leasee of the Gram Panchayat. Law is well settled that at this stage, prima facie case, balance of convenience and the fact as to whether irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioners-plaintiffs if ad-interim injunction is not granted, are to be seen. However, learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs has failed to show to this Court any document showing their possession over the property in dispute except mutation, which was allegedly sanctioned in their favour pursuance to agreement of exchange entered between them and the then Sarpanch of the respondent-defendant, Gram Panchayat. However, merely in view of this mutation, which was subsequently cancelled by competent authority, it cannot be said that petitioners-plaintiffs have been able to show that they are in possession of the premises in dispute. Rather it is shown that the possession has been handed over to Sarwan Singh in an auction by Gram Panchayat, being highest bidder. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned order or 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 3 CR No.7876 of 2010 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 herein shall be having any bearing on the decision of this case on merit by the trial Court. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 22, 2011. JUDGE ‘om’ 4