SBCWP NO.1632/08. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR. O R D E R Smt.Sharda Devi Versus State of Rajasthan and others S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITON NO.1632/2008. Date of order :- 22/2/2008. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Suresh Dhehnwal for Shri Praveen Balwada for the petitioner. ***** The writ petition has been filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge No.1, Bayana, Bharatpur dated 20/11/2007 whereby the appeal of the petitioner filed against the order dated 5/4/2005 passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) Bayana, Distt.Bharatpur refusing to grant injunction in mandatory form against the defendant-respondent, was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned courts below have failed to correctly appreciate the record of the Court Commissioner Shri Atar Singh who clearly proved that the road in question was constructed on the agriculture land of the petitioner in Khasra No.284, 285 and 288. It was argued that the report clearly state that there was Tubewell, 'Dol' and 'Medh' on the land of the petitioner and his hut was also removed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subsequent report of the Court Commissioner and the team constituted by the Tehsildar do not correctly reflect the correct situation on ground. SBCWP NO.1632/08. Learned trial court ought to have granted mandatory injunction pending adjudication of the suit directing the respondents to remove the road. Learned appellate court also erred in holding that petitioner could not by evidence prove his prima-facie case for grant of injunction in mandatory form. Learned counsel argued that the officials of the respondent-Department were punished for violating of the status-quo order passed by the trial court and, therefore, injunction in the mandatory form deserves to be granted for maintaining status-quo. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the impugned order, I find that the learned trial court in his order dated 15/4/2005 has noted the discrepancy is between the two reports of the Commissioner but at the same time it has also observed that the Settlement Department has indicated the way in the revenue record and that the report of the Commissioner did not indicate the correct location of the road which could be done only by revenue officials who were experts in the subject. It was held that the government has by spending money now constructing the road and such road cannot be now directly be removed by injunction in mandatory form. So, the appellate court concurred the view taken by the trial court holding that petitioner could not prove prima-facie case so as to justify grant of injunction in the mandatory form or removal of the road which could be proved only by conclusive evidence whether the road was constructed through the land of the petitioner or not. SBCWP NO.1632/08. In my considered view, learned courts below did not commit any error in arriving at the satisfaction because consideration for grant of temporary injunction and for grant of mandatory injunction and that too for removing a constructed road, are entirely different would. Latter certainly require a greater degree of proof for prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff. When it is shown that Settlement Department had also indicated a way in the revenue record in or about the same land, its exact location could not have been determined by the Court Commissioner. I therefore do not find any good reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned courts below. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil