C.R.No.3139 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3139 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 14.11.2011 Baru Ram ... Petitioner Versus Balwinder Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. B.P.S.Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The present revision petition has arisen out of proceedings on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the Code”) by the plaintiff-petitioner seeking interim injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him. The trial Court allowed the said application vide order dated 10.3.2011, Annexure P.1, which order was reversed on appeal by the defendant-respondents vide order dated 2.5.2011, Annexure P.2 which has been impugned in the present revision petition. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. Case of the petitioner is that he is in continuous possession of the suit land for the last 45 years. Earlier his father Munshi Ram had taken shamlat land on lease from 1 C.R.No.3139 of 2011 respondent No.2 i.e. Gram Panchayat Ravas Brahamana in the year 1972. They are regularly paying chakota. Possession of the petitioner is also duly recorded in the jamabandies from 1972 onwards. On 12.10.2010, respondent No.2 conducted an open auction of the land for the year 2010-11. The petitioner also took part in the open auction and paid highest bid of the shamlat land. Respondent No.2 gave the land to the petitioner on lease for one year i.e from 12.10.2010. The petitioner paid Rs.15600/- to respondent No.2 and a receipt was issued by respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner. In the meantime, the Government launched a new policy SGSGY to construct rural huts in the villages for self help groups. The scheme was circulated to the villages including respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 vide resolution dated 10.6.2009 decided to give shamlat land for construction of rural huts from Khasra No.285 but this khasra number being in possession of relative of husband of the Sarpanch, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 wanted to construct the rural huts on the land given to the petitioner on lease. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff- petitioner filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendant- respondents restraining them from dispossessing him from land bearing Khewat/Khatoni No.123/189 Khasra No.278(3-0), 280(2-1), 281(5-13) and 281 (6-1) total 17 bighha 4 biswas situated at village Ravas Brahamana Tehsil and District Patiala. Application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code filed by the petitioner alongwith the suit was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 10.3.2011. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.2 filed an appeal before the appellate court which has been allowed vide order dated 2.5.2011 and application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 has been 2 C.R.No.3139 of 2011 dismissed. Hence this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that the lease deed by virtue of which the plaintiff-petitioner was holding possession was dated 12.10.2010 and period being for one year, the plaintiff-petitioner was in legal possession which he was entitled to retain till dispossessed by defendant-respondents in accordance with law. It was further submitted that inspite of injunction having been granted by the trial court, the defendants had ploughed the crops and violated the injunction order. The defendant No.2 was not entitled to illegally dispossess the plaintiff-petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the order passed by the appellate court and also referred to Annexure R-3 filed alongwith the reply wherein CWP No.4345 of 2011 was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner in which reference was made to statement made by the counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner where he had stated that the land shall be given back to the Gram Panchayat on 29.4.2011. Reference was also made to Clause 12 of the lease deed Annexure R.6 to show that as per lease deed, the petitioner-plaintiff was to deliver back possession to Gram Panchayat on 15.4.2011. Lastly, it was submitted that even if period of one year was to be counted from 12.10.2010, the same having expired as on date, the petitioner was not entitled to any injunction. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. 6. It was not disputed that the lease entered into by the petitioner was dated 12.10.2010 wherein as per Clause 12, the plaintiff-petitioner was required to deliver back possession on 15.4.2011. Even otherwise, if the period of one year was to be 3 C.R.No.3139 of 2011 counted from the date of execution of the lease deed dated 12.10.2010, the said period had expired on 12.10.2011 and in such a situation, the petitioner was not entitled to retain possession after the expiry of the term of the lease. On a specific question being put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to what right the plaintiff has over the land in dispute, learned counsel was unable to give any reply much less satisfactory reply to justify the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Learned appellate court while reversing the finding of the trial court and dismissing the application of the plaintiff had observed as under in the impugned order herein:- “8. In this regard, I am of the opinion that it has been admitted by Baru Ram that the suit property belongs to Gram Panchayat and he has taken this property in auction. He also executed lease agreement with Gram Panchayat on 12.10.2010. As per this agreement he was to deliver the possession of the suit property to the Gram Panchayat on 15.4.2011 after harvesting wheat crop. Moreover, there is also an observation in the order passed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 10.3.2011 that Baru Ram will deliver possession of the suit property after 29.4.2011. But both the said dates have already expired. Now Baru Ram has failed to deliver the possession of the suit property after 29.4.2011. But both the said dates have already expired. Now if Baru Ram has failed to deliver the possession of the suit property, it means that he is in unauthorized possession of the suit property. Since a person in unauthorized possession is not entitled to seek any injunction against the true owner, as such on this ground the appeal filed by Gram Panchayat appellant is liable to be accepted and the order passed by the learned lower court under appeal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 10.3.2011 passed by the learned lower 4 C.R.No.3139 of 2011 court stands set aside and the appeal filed against this order by Gram Panchayat stands allowed. The appeal file be consigned to the record room.” 7. No error or perversity could be pointed out in the order dated 2.5.2011 passed by the appellate court warranting interference by this Court. 8. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. November 14, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 5