Back
2024 Supreme(J&K) 401
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Sanjay Dhar, J.
M/s M.R. Industries - Appellant
Versus
State of J&K And Ors. - Respondents
MA No. 141 of 2013
Decided On : 17-12-2024
For the Appellant :Mr. Nissar Ahmad Bhat, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Zahid Qais Noor, GA
Occupancy without valid legal rights or agreements does not confer ownership; long possession does not equate to entitlement.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 10 - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act - Temporary injunction - Appeal against dismissal of application for temporary injunction to restrain respondents from evicting appellant from land—Appellant claims tacit authorization to occupy land; respondents contest as encroachment. Court establishes no prima facie case due to lack of formal allotment and reliance on Supreme Court principles regarding occupancy rights. (Paras 7-11)
(B) Possession - Long possession without entitlement does not confer rights—Appeal dismissed, interim injunction not granted. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
Appellant claims use of additional plot of land based on prior tacit approval; defendants assert unlawful encroachment on migrant property. Procedural clarity lacking as defendants did not file written statement, yet application for injunction was dismissed citing ongoing litigation.
Findings of Court:
No prima facie case established, appellant's claims inadequate for granting injunction due to lack of legal rights over the land.
Issues: Whether prior tacit approval suffices for legal occupancy; evaluation of interim injunction based on established legal principles.
Ratio Decidendi: Prior occupancy claims do not confer rights if no formal allocation exists; the law protects only those with recognized agreements.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual circumstances regarding ownership and occupancy. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by the parties. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis on the criteria for injunction. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. dismissal of appeal. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Dhar, J.
1. The appellant through the present Miscellaneous Appeal has challenged order dated 22.07.2013, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar, whereby application of the appellant for grant of temporary injunction has been dismissed.
2. It appears that the appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar, inter alia, seeking an injunction against the respondents/defendants restraining them from interfering with the use and occupation of plot of land bearing No.63-C situated at Industrial Estate Zainakote, Srinagar.
3. In the plaint, the case set up by the plaintiff is that it is a Small Scale Industrial Unit, to which 2 kanals of land, situated at Industrial Estate Zainakote, Srinagar, was allotted by the respondents in terms of lease deed dated 28.06.2006. It has been pleaded that the plaintiff was permitted to undertake additional activities by the respondents, whereafter, he was tacitly allowed by the respondents to utilize the additional space in the form of adjacent plot of land bearing No.63-C. According to the plaintiff he has been paying ground rent charges to the respondents for use of said plot of land. It has been further pleaded that the plaintiff has approached the defendants time and again with a request to issue a formal allotment order in its favour in respect of aforesaid plot of land in consonance with the industrial policy of defendant No.1. However, according to the defendants the plaintiff has encroached upon the additional plot of land which is a migrant property. It is the case of plaintiff that stand taken by the defendants is not correct and that plaintiff has been tacitly allowed to use the additional plot of land. Therefore, the defendants cannot evict the plaintiff from the occupation of Plot No.63-C, without following due process of law as mandated in terms of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.
4. It seems that defendant did not file any written statement but filed an application seeking stay of the suit in terms of Section 10 of the CPC. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the application of the plaintiff for grant of interim injunction by observing that there is a litigation going on in respect of plot of land bearing No.63-C before High Court, in which a stay order has been passed, as such, no interim injunction can be passed in favour of the plaintiff.
5. Plaintiff/appellant has challenged the impugned order passed by learned trial Court on the ground that in absence of written statement by the defendants it was not open to the trial Court to dismiss the application of the plaintiff. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff is in settled possession of the additional plot of land in question, as such, he is entitled to be granted protection from eviction otherwise than in accordance with law. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that even the writ petition, reference whereof is made in the impugned order, stands dismissed, as such, there is no impediment in passing of interim injunction in favour of the appellant/plaintiff.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
7. It is a settled law that a civil Court while considering grant or refusal of interim injunction has to analyse the pleadings of the parties, so as to come to a conclusion whether or not there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and whether withholding of an order of injunction would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff. The Court has also to consider the balance of convenience while passing an order of interim injunction.
8. Adverting
