C.R. No.2754 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.2754 of 2007 Date of Decision: 29.1.2008 Ram Gopal .....Petitioner Vs. Haryana State and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Yashwinder Pal Singh,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.C. Gupta, AAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr.P.K. Chugh, Advocate for respondent no.4. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner has filed a suit for declaration that the notice issued by respondents no.1 to 3, directing the petitioner to demolish the construction/kotha is illegal, void and without jurisdiction, as respondents no.1 to 3 are not owners of the said land. It is submitted that the Courts below erred, in declining an injunction, as the petitioner had challenged the legality of the impugned notice, threatening demolition of the kotha. It is further asserted that the kotha if demolished, would render the suit infructuous. It is further submitted that the jamabandi does not show the State of Haryana or the Irrigation Department, as owners of the land in dispute and, therefore, the impugned notice was without jurisdiction. Counsel for respondents no.1 to 3, however, states that the land belongs to the Irrigation Department and the petitioner, therefore, has no C.R. No.2754 of 2007 2 right to construct a kotha. The learned Courts below rightly declined an interim injunction. Counsel for respondent no.4 states that the petitioner has raised construction in the path that was used by him since time immemorial to approach his land. The grant of an injunction to the petitioner would, prevent respondent no.4 from approaching his land and making use thereof. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The learned Courts below lost sight of the fact that challenge in the suit was to the right of respondents no.1 to 3, to issue a notice, calling upon the petitioner, to demolish the offending structure. A prima facie appraisal of the jamabandi, appended herewith as Annexures P-7 to P-9 does not disclose the ownership of the State or the Irrigation Department. Consequently, without expressing any further opinion, as to the merits of the present controversy, it would be in the fitness of things, as also in the interest of justice, if the present petition is disposed of, with a direction to the parties to maintain status-quo, with respect to the disputed kotha, during the pendency of the present petition. However, the petitioner shall not obstruct the passage of respondent no.4 to his fields and in case, there exists any such obstruction, the petitioner shall ensure that respondent no.4 has free access to his fields. 29.1.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE