SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 689

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Principal Seat at Guwahati 
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Kuaripukhuri High School A, Represented by its Headmaster cum Member Secretary – Petitioner
Versus
Md. Abdul Jalil, S/o. Late Sadek Ali – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 133 of 2024 
Decided On : 06-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. K. Rahman. Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. M.U. Mahmud

A temporary injunction is an equitable remedy that requires proof of a prima facie case and a balance of convenience. Permissive occupiers of public land cannot claim the protection of an injunction to prevent their eviction when no valid legal title exists and public interest is involved.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 115 - Order 39 Rule 1 - Temporary injunction - Discretionary relief - Principles for grant - Existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury are essential prerequisites - Injunction cannot be granted in the absence of a bona fide dispute or serious triable issue - Public interest is a material consideration in the exercise of equitable discretion. (Paras 9, 9.1, 9.2, 16)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Grounds for interference - Order of interlocutory injunction is equitable - Conduct of the party seeking relief is paramount - Permissive occupation of public property does not confer legal possessory rights sufficient to warrant an injunction against a public institution - Mutation records do not substitute for title but indicate the nature of standing; courts must ensure judicial discretion is not exercised to facilitate encroachment on public holdings. (Paras 11.1, 13, 15, 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
An educational institution holding public property challenged an order of temporary injunction granted in favor of individuals claiming long-term possessory rights. The lower courts had restrained the institution from interfering with the occupation of the disputants. The institution contended that the occupants were merely permissive users of the land, which had been designated as government-controlled property, and that no valid legal grounds existed for the injunction.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the respondents failed to establish a prima facie case, a requirement for equitable relief. The respondents were identified as permissive occupiers whose claims of possession did not override the public interest and the institution's management of the property. The lower courts had misapplied the principles of equity by failing to consider the nature of the property and the conduct of the parties involved.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the lower courts were justified in granting a temporary injunction to individuals claiming possessory rights over public land without establishing a clear prima facie legal entitlement against the institution.

Ratio Decidendi: Temporary injunction is an equitable remedy requiring proof of a substantial legal right; mere occupation by a permissive user does not constitute a valid possessory claim to justify an injunction against an institution holding public property. The failure to demonstrate a bona fide triable issue, combined with considerations of public interest, renders the grant of such injunctions unsustainable. (Paras 13, 13.3, 16, 20)

Result: Petition allowed. The impugned orders of the trial and appellate courts stand set aside.

Table of Content
1. establishing the factual background and procedural history of the land dispute. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. parties' conflicting contentions regarding possessory rights and tenancy status under the 1971 act. (Para 6 , 7)
3. the requirement of a prima facie case as a condition for equitable injunction relief. (Para 9 , 12 , 13)
4. evaluating lower court findings regarding balance of convenience and irreparable harm. (Para 10 , 11)
5. public interest and the conduct of parties in seeking equitable discretionary relief. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGEMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

Heard Mr. K. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the CPC, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 12.11.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Darrang at Mangaldai (appellate court hereinafter), in Misc. Appeal No. 14/2023.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2024, the learned appellate court had affirmed the ad- interim temporary injunction order dated 02.11.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Darrang at Mangaldai (trial court hereinafter), in Misc. (J) Case No. 25/2023.

4. It is also to be noted here that vide order dated 02.11.2023, the learned trial court had restrained the petitioner herein and its tenants from encroaching the Schedule A1, A2, A5 – A10 land and also from disturbing the possession of the respondents in any manner till final disposal of the suit.

5. The back ground facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under:-

“Kuaripukhuri High School A, represented by its Headmaster cum Member Secretary, the petitioner herein, was earlier a Madrassa institution, which was converted to a High School and it is covering an area about 6 Bighas 1 Katha 9 Lechas and since the petitioner school is running under the Directorate of Secondary Education, Government of Assam, the said property now becomes the Government property.

Earlier one Dhepu Sheikh, was the owner of the said land and during his lifetime, he had orally gifted the said land in the name of Kuwari Pukhuri Kharejia Madrassa, which was, later on, converted to Kuwari Pukhuri High School A and out of the total land, the petitioner school had given a plot of land, measuring 5 Bighas, to several local people for cultivation in yearly 'thika' basis and the paddy received from the said cultivators was used for the development/management of the institution and after conversion, the petitioner school was provincialised on 15.08.1994, and thereafter, the said land was mutated in the name of the petitioner school in the year 1999.

Then, in the year 2014, out of the said land, 2 Kathas 10 Lechas had been given to Galandi Hafizia for temporary settlement and the same has been functioning in the house constructed over the said land without interruption and 1 Bigha of the total land has also been developed and maintained as a cemetery for the public and around 3 Kathas of land in front of the Galandi Hafizia Madrassa was used by its students as a playground. Thereafter, in the year 2021, the respondent Nos. 1 – 4, along with one Akabar Ali and Sahamat Ali, illegally entered into the land and forcefully dispossessed them from the same and illegally constructed an „ekchalia house‟ over the same.

In the meantime, the land has been mutated in the name of Kuwari Pukhuri High School A, vide Government order No. DSE/GIS/Amal/9/2021/127, dated 06.05.2022. Then, in the month of May, 2021, after the expiry of the thika period, the Kuwari Pukhuri High School „A‟ had taken over the possession of the land measuring 5 Bighas from respondent Nos. 5 – 8.

Thereafter, on 22.12.2022, the School authority had arranged a public meeting and the 5 Bighas of land were once again given in thika basis, as per open tender No.1,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top