The court's decision was based on the principle that if the land where the road is to be constructed is a part of the burial ground, then no road shall be constructed in the burial ground.

1. - This revision is directed against the order of the learned District Judge Jhunjhunu dated 5.2.1986 whereby the petitioner's appeal was dismissed and the order of the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate Jhunjhunu dated 29.1.86 was upheld and the petitioner's application for grant of temporary injunction was rejected. Both the courts below did not find all the ingredients in favour of the petitioner and consequently the application of the petitioner was rejected.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties in my opinion this revision petition deserves to be allowed in view of the admitted fact that Khasra No. 772 is a burial ground and the petitioner's case is that road be not allowed to be constructed in the burial ground. The non-petitioners who had submitted the reply in the trial court have admitted that Khasra No. 772 is a burial ground. In view of this admission it would be proper to direct the non-petitioners not to construct any road in Khasra No. 772. What is the extent of Khasra No. 772 towards South may be got determined by getting South boundary of Khasra No. 772 demarcated. The non-petitioners may get it demarcated from the competent authority and after such demarcation if it is found that the land on which road is being or sought to be constructed does not fall within Khasra No. 772 the non-petitioners would be at liberty to construct the road. In case on demarcation it is found that the land where the road is to be constructed is a part of Khasra No. 772 then no road shall be constructed in Khasra No. 772.

3. The revision petition is therefore decided accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs of this revision petition.Revision decided accordingly.

*******