C.R. No.6467 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6467 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17.02.2010 Hardial Singh .……Petitioner Versus Kulwant Kaur and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajbir Vasu, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiff Hardial Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction alleging that he is in possession of the suit plot measuring 5 marlas which is part of land measuring 9 kanals 10 marlas comprised of khasra No.272 in Village Isherwal and the plaintiff has raised boundary wall of the said plot, but the defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiff therefrom. Defendant No.1 pleaded that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land and rather defendants are in possession thereof. The suit land is Jumla Malkan. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kapurthala vide order dated 11.04.1999 (Annexure P-5) allowed plaintiff's application for temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with C.R. No.6467 of 2009 -2- Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and restrained the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and from dispossessing him therefrom till final disposal of the suit. However, in appeal preferred by defendant No.1, learned District Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment dated 16.10.2009 (Annexure P-6) set aside the order of the trial Court and dismissed application moved by plaintiff for temporary injunction. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently contended that the plaintiff is recorded to be in possession of the suit land in khasra girdawari for 2007-08 and, therefore, the plaintiff is prima facie in possession of the suit land. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the plaintiff in collusion with Patwari got recorded stray entry in khasra girdawari in favour of plaintiff, who never remained in possession of the suit land. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Perusal of khasra girdawari (Annexure P-2) reveals that entire land measuring 9 kanals 10 marlas of khasra No.272 is owned by Jumla Malkan Wa Haqdaraan Hasab Rasad Khewat. Possession of owners was recorded over the entire land which was mentioned to be Gair Mumkin Abadi. However, suddenly in Rabi 2008 crop possession of plaintiff over 5 marlas land was mentioned, showing it to be under wheat crop sown by the plaintiff. However, thereafter again in khasra girdawari for Kharif 2008 and Rabi 2009 crops, the entire land measuring 9 kanals 10 marlas was C.R. No.6467 of 2009 -3- recorded to be Gair Mumkin Abadi and no portion was shown to be in possession of the plaintiff. It is thus apparent that there is only a stray entry in Rabi 2008 crop in khasra girdawari depicting possession of the plaintiff over 5 marlas land. Entries prior and subsequent thereto do not record possession of the plaintiff over any portion of land measuring 9 kanals 10 marlas. On the basis of stray entry in Rabi 2008 crop only. The plaintiff cannot be said to be prima facie in possession of the suit land. It has to be noticed that the entire land measuring 9 kanals 10 marlas is recorded to be Gair Mumkin Abadi and the entry in Rabi 2008 crop showing that the plaintiff had sown wheat crop on 5 marlas land is prima facie also unnatural. In addition thereto, the said entry in Rabi 2008 crop in favour of the plaintiff was made allegedly at the instance of Gurdial Singh, Nambardar, Sohan Singh, Nambardar and Hardial Singh Member Panchayat. However, all the said persons gave affidavit that they never stated so before the Halqa Patwari. It also prima facie depict that the aforesaid entry is factually incorrect. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Gaurdev Singh versus Gram Panchayat of Village Pabala and others, 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 709. However, this judgment simply lays down that if a person is found to be in prima facie possession of any part of land of Jumla Malkan, he is entitled to interim injunction. In the instant case, the plaintiff is not found to be prima facie in possession of the suit land and, therefore, this judgment has no applicability. For reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no illegality in C.R. No.6467 of 2009 -4- the impugned judgment dated 16.10.2009 (Annexure P-6). The plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 17.02.2010. A. Kaundal