C.R.No.6854 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6854 of 2009 Date of Decision : 25.11.2009 Roshan Lal ...Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat Sadhaura and another ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) One of the plaintiffs is in revision, aggrieved against the orders passed by the learned trial Court on 6.3.2009 and by the learned first Appellate Court on 17.9.2009, whereby an application filed by the plaintiffs for grant of ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed. The plaintiffs have sought restraint order against the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs or demolishing their houses over the land in dispute, alleging themselves to be in possession of the said land as proprietors of the village. Both the Courts have returned a finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are proprietors of the village. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner before this Court has relied upon jamabandi for the year 1995-96, which is appended as Annexure P-5 with the present revision petition, to contend that the petitioner is in fact in possession as proprietor, as the land in dispute is described to be owned by the proprietors and in possession thereof. However, the said jamabandi does not prove that the petitioner C.R.No.6854 of 2009 2 is one of the proprietor. There is no document to show that the petitioner or his any of the ancestors are the proprietors of the village i.e. they are owners of the agricultural land in village and are in possession of the land described in the revenue record as Malkiat Mutfarak Malkan. In fact, a perusal of the plaint would show that Sub Divisional Officer, Water Services, Sub Division Jagadhri has directed for removal of permanent structures raised in the course of natural flow of the water in view of the fact that such construction obstruct the flow of the water and may cause flood in the upper areas. In the absence of any proof of any interest or title in the suit property, the petitioner cannot claim any injunction merely for the reason that they have raised some construction long-time back. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed the Courts below, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 25.11.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE