Civil Revision No.3582 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3582 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.03.2009 Baba Farid Educational Society .............Petitioner Vs. Gram Panchayat & another ............Respondents Present: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the respondents. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The civil revision petition is against an order dismissing the application for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the property. The trial Court had originally granted the relief of injunction as sought for and the Appellate Court set aside the order in the Misc. Civil Appeal filed at the instance of the defendant. 2. The right to property was claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of an alleged resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat giving a licence to the plaintiff-society to establish and run a school. This resolution was subsequently cancelled by the proceedings of the Joint Director of Rural Development and Panchayats by its order dated 22.09.2005. This order was impugned by the suit where an Civil Revision No.3582 of 2006 (O&M) -2- interlocutory application for injunction was filed and interim injunction was sought. The contention on behalf of the defendant was that resolution itself had been engineered by one Balwinder Singh, who connived with the Sarpanch of the Panchayat and got passed a resolution in favour of the society. It was brought out before the Appellate Court that the Panchayat had actually taken possession of the property and the relief of injunction had, therefore, become infructuous. 3. Even apart from the fact that the relief of injunction after the actual delivery of possession of the property by the Panchayat could not be maintained, since the petitioner has still not prima facie case to sustain the relief of injunction. So long as the order of cancellation of the resolution is operative and it is not set aside in any process known to law, the plaintiff cannot seek for an injunction against the true owner especially when what was pleaded for was a licence and not any interest in immovable property by a process known to law. 4. The order of the Appellate Court is confirmed and the civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 23, 2009 Pankaj*