Civil Revision No. 3583 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3583 of 2009 Date of decision: 03.07.2009 Veena @ Veena Kumari and others ....Petitioners Versus Punjab State and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.3.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the application moved by the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking injunction against the respondent-Panchayat Samiti from dispossessing the petitioners from the property in dispute, has been ordered to be dismissed. The petitioners claim that they were tenants under the Panchayat Samiti for a period of 99 years, in pursuance to the letter issued by the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Batala. It is further the case of the petitioners, that they were dispossessed from part of the premises in dispute and Civil Revision No. 3583 of 2009 -2- are entitled to retain the possession qua property in possession. The learned Courts below held that the letter issued was, in fact, cancelled and the petitioners were never put in legal possession of the property in dispute. The learned Courts below also held that the notice was issued to the petitioners, and consequently held that petitioners had no legal right to retain the possession. They did not have any prima facie case nor balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioners and, thus, rejected the application. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that once the petitioners were found to be in established possession, they could be dispossessed only with due process of law, therefore, the order passed by the learned Courts below cannot be sustained. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners had not produced any receipt to show that they had ever paid rent to claim legal possession of the property in dispute. Furthermore, notice was issued to the petitioners which could be challenged under the provisions of the Act but petitioners chose not to do so. The order passed by the learned Courts below does not suffer from any illegalily, which may call for any interference by this Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 03, 2009 R.S.