The central legal point established in the judgment is the misreading of documents and the ownership rights of the proprietors of the village in a land ownership dispute.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 8-06-2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which the appeal filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 herein against the order dated 27-04-2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Kaithal, granting ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioners, was allowed and the application moved by the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.

2. The suit was filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC on the allegation that the suit land detailed in para 1 of the plaint was under the ownership of the plaintiffs-petitioner being proprietors/Biswedars of village and, therefore, they had got every right in the suit land. It was also pleaded that they had got share in the suit land being Jumla Malkan Bah Hakrast-Rakba and they had the interest in the suit land.

3. As the proprietors are numerous in number, the suit was filed in representative capacity.

4. The case set up was that the suit land was mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat, Pabala, vide mutation No. 317 which was sanctioned on 4- 07- 1992 by virtue of Act No. 9 of 1992, but the said Act was struck down by this Court in the case titled as Jai Singh v. State of Haryana (2003-2) PLR 658 and it was held by this Court vide order dated 13-3-2003 that the land which was reserved for common purposes shall vest in the Gram Panchayat, whereas the remaining land would vest in the proprietors of the village. In view of the said judgment, the plaintiff-petitioners applied to the competent authority for sanctioning the mutation which was done on 24-10- 2005. The mutation was sanctioned in favour of Jumla Malkan Bahad Hakdaran Hasab Rasad Rakba. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that the suit land was never reserved for common purposes and accordingly the proprietors including the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the same and thus mutation No. 425 in favour of Gram Panchayat had no concern with the suit land.

5. It was further pleaded that now the defendant-respondents in collusion with the District Administration threatened the plaintiffs and other proprietors of the village by putting the suit land for auction for cultivation purposes. Along with the suit an application for temporary injunction was made.

6. The learned trial Court on a consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that the mutation placed on record shows the land in dispute to be Jumla Malkan Bahad Hakdaran Hasab Rasad Rakba and, therefore, the plaintiffs had a prima facie case in their favour. It was also noticed that the mutation was sanctioned in the presence of the defendant respondents and, therefore, it was not open to them to take a plea that they were not aware of the latest mutation and thus the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff-petitioners and that they would suffer an irreparable loss in case temporary injunction was not granted.

7. On appeal, the learned Appellate Court came to the conclusion that in the jamabandi for year 1957-58, Gram Panchayat was shown to be in possession of the suit land and further came to the conclusion that part of the suit land was Banjar Kadim, gair mumkin rasta, gair mumkin Nahar and gair mumkin charan. It also came to the conclusion that the land was used for public purposes and the ownership of the suit land was shown to be that of the Gram Panchayat. It was observed by the learned lower Appellate Court that the Revenue Authorities sanctioned mutation No. 425 in favour of Jumla Malkan Bah Haktrast Rakba on 9-02-2006 and the land which was actually in the name of the Gram Panchayat was mutated in favour of Jumla Malkan Bah Hakrast Rakba. It was also noticed that in the jamabandi for the year 2000-01, the suit land was shown in the ownership of Gram Panchayat and i