C.R. 3650 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. 3650 of 2008 Date of decision:- 4.11.2009 Satnam Singh petitioner vs Divisional Forest Officer & Others Respondent Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate Mr. NS Pawar, Addl.A.G.Pb 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.S.BEDI,J. The plaintiff- petitioner has filed this revision petition against order dated 20.9.2007 passed by the lower appellate court reversing order dated 13.1.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Ludhiana granting interim injunction to the plaintiff- petitioner restraining the defendant- respondents from dispossessing the plaintiff- petitioner from the suit property during pendency of the case except by due course of law. The trial court has observed that the plaintiff- petitioner is in illegal possession. The lower appellate court, while reversing the order and dismissing the application for interim injunction of the plaintiff- petitioner, has observed that the defendants cannot be restrained from performing their official duties and from taking over the property of the land in dispute, which is reserved for forest purpose in the interest of general public. It is apparent from the facts, disclosed in the orders passed by the courts below, that the plaintiff- petitioner is in possession of the land in dispute, which vests in the Forest Department. Whether the petitioner is in unauthorised possession C.R. 3650 of 2008 2 or he has got a right to continue in possession is yet to be determined by an appropriate forum, therefore, the trial court had rightly protected the possession of the plaintiff- petitioner till dispossessed in accordance with procedure of law. The order passed by the lower appellate court interfering in the order passed by the trial court granting interim injunction is inappropriate as the lower appellate court has not determined whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff- petitioner or the defendant-respondents and whether the petitioner will suffer an irrepairable loss in case forcibly dispossessed. Even an unauthorised occupant has to be dispossessed in accordance with procedure of law. The said settled proposition of law seems to have been ignored by the lower appellate court. In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed,order dated 20.9.2008 is hereby set aside and it is ordered that the petitioner will not be dispossessed from the land in dispute during the pendency of the suit except by adopting due procedure of law. It will be open to the respondents to initiate eviction proceedings by adopting due procedure of law, even during pendency of the suit. November 4 ,2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) TSM JUDGE