( 1 ). IN this suit for perpetual injunction, seeking to restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the land comprised in Khasra No. 25/1, totally admeasuring (4-16) situated within the revenue estate of Village Devli, National Capital Territory of Delhi, the plaintiff by IA No. 4719/95 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code seeks to restrain the defendants from interfering, in any manner, with the enjoyment of the actual physical cultivatory possession of the suit land pending the hearing and disposal of the suit.

( 2 ). In the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiff is the recorded Bhoomidar in possession of the agricultural land, comprised in Khasra No. 14/21 situated within the revenue estate of Village Devli, Tehsil Mehrauli in National Capital Territory of Delhi since the purchase on 18. 10. 82; that defendant No. 1 is the recorded Bhoomidar of the land comprised in Khasra No. 25/1 (4-16), situated within the revenue estate of Village Devli, Tehsil Mehrauli in National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land"); that defendant No. 1, after having purchased the suit land had left the said land vacant and unattended; that the villagers and jhuggi dwellers broke the boundry wall and started using the place as a dump yard and public lavatory; that it caused great inconvenience, diconfort and nuisance to the plaintiff as the suit land adjoins the land of the plaintif, i. e. land comprised in Khasra No. 14/21; that the suit land having been put to use of a dump yard and a public lavatory, became a source of filthy and foul smells and to avoid the situation and to save the adjoining land (suit land) being used as a dump yard and a public lavatory, the plaintiff in the year 1988, got the suit land cleared and repaired the boundary wall at his cost and expenses; that to avoid the suit land from being used as a dump yard and a public lavatory, the plaintiff in the year 1989 started cultivating the suit land and that since then within the actual physical cultivatory possession of the suit land.

( 3 ). Thus, according to the plaintiff as the suit land was being used as a dump yard and public lavatory causing great inconvenience,disconfort and nuisance to the plaintiff, the plaintiff in the year 1989 started cultivating the suit land and since then within the actual physical cultivatory possession of the suit land. Thus, on plaintiff s own say, he has been a tress-passer or an unauthorised occupant, for the reasons aforestated in the suit land from 1989. Admittedly the suit land is adjescent to the plaintiff s land in Khasra No. 14/21 and that the defendant is the recorded Bhoomidar of suit land which is comprised in Khasra No. 25/1 (4-16 ).

( 4 ). IT has been submitted by Mr. Vashisht, counsel for the plaintiff, that the plaintiff has been in actual cultivatory physical cultivatory physical possession of the suit land and that the photographs on record show the plaintiff s possesion of the suit land and even the local commissioner s report indicate the plaintiff s prima-facie possession on the suit land.

( 5 ). The local commissioner s report suggests that he was taken to the land, which was on the back side of the big structure; that the suit land which was an open space, was covered and protected by the boundary wall made-up of bricks and the whole structure is protected which, on plaintiff s say, belonged to him; that thereafter, the local commissioner was taken to the plot in question. He noticed the presence of one Mr. K. B. Jawa son of late Shri B. R. Jawa and Mr. Surjit Singh s/o S. Laxman Singh, engaged for security purpose by the plaintiff since 16. 5. 95 and two other persons Mr. Mithilesh and Mr. Raj Kumar, working under Mr. Jawa and Mr. Surjit Singh. The local commissioner has noted that the plot in question was lying vacant and not used for any purpose and as far as crop/materials are concerned - it is observed that it is difficult to say that the plo