The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim for temporary injunction requires the plaintiff to establish possession and title over the disputed land. The court's decision was influenced by the failure of the plaintiff to demonstrate possession and title, as well as the application of the Panchayati Raj Act.

1. - By way of this writ petition, the plaintiff-petitioner seeks to question the order dated 19.09.2007 (Annex. 5) as passed by the District Judge, Pali in Civil Appeal (Order) No. 49/2006 setting aside the order issuing temporary injunction as passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Marwar Junction on 31.08.2006 in Civil Misc. Case No. 2/2006.

2. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction and, according to the averments taken in the amended plaint, the plaintiff has claimed his rights over a piece of land situated at village Thal, Tehsil Marwar Junction, District Pali stated to be measuring 36 feet on the northern side; 46 feet on the southern side; 85 feet on the eastern side; and 75 feet on the western side. While stating that the land in question is encompassed on the northern side by public way, on the southern side by open land, on the eastern side by Laxman Singh's house, and on the western side by public way, the plaintiff has alleged that the land in question has been in his possession for about 40 years, he has a room constructed thereat, and has been residing with his family.

3. It appears that in the plaint as originally presented, the plaintiff stated the measurement of the disputed land as 40 x 60 feet and Laxman Singh's house being situated towards its southern side. Be that as it may, the fact nevertheless remains that the plaintiff has alleged the land in question being adjacent to the land of his brother Laxman Singh.

4. The plaintiff has stated illegal interference by the defendants Gram Panchayat, Jhijhardi and its Sarpanch and has alleged that he was sought to be dispossessed from the land in question for political enmity. The plaintiff also filed an application for interim relief and sought temporary injunction against the defendants that he be not dispossessed and the defendants should not interfere with his use and occupation of the land in question.

5. The defendants put the application for temporary injunction to contest on the submissions, inter alia, that the land in question was Panchayat's property proposed for Anganwadi Kendra and the plaintiff was only an unauthorised occupant. The defendants pointed that on 10.05.2001, the previous Gram Panchayat removed the encroachment on the land in question as made by one Lal Singh s/o Bheem Singh; and the plaintiff himself was a complainant against such encroachment. According to the defendants, the material of the earlier encroacher lying at the site was taken over in possession by the Panchayat and was handed over to the plaintiff Chhagan Singh but thereafter he has attempted to take over the land in question in his possession.

6. The learned Trial Court proceeded to issue temporary injunction against the defendants that the plaintiff should not be dispossessed from the land in question with the observations that there had been inconsistency in the stand of the defendants in relation to the land in question when they alleged it to be the land of way and also alleged the same being the land proposed for Anganwadi Kendra; and on the considerations that even if a trespasser, the plaintiff could not be dispossessed without due process of law and the defendants have failed to show if they were proceeding in against the plaintiff in accordance with law.

7. The learned Appellate Court has, however, allowed the appeal preferred by the defendants while disagreeing with the findings of the learned Trial Court on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The learned Appellate Court has observed that as on 10.05.2001, the said Shri Lal Singh was in possession of the land in question and he was dispossessed by Panchayat after following the requisite procedure and only the material lying at the site was handed over to the plaintiff. While finding that the plaintiff has no title over the land in question nor has been able to show his possession before 10.05.2001, the learned Appellate Court has