A trespasser may be entitled to injunction if they have some semblance of right or claim to the property, and the court must consider the prima facie case and balance of convenience.

M.L. Singhal, J. - Through this order, civil revision Nos. 4691, 4679, 4690, 4693 and 6232 of 1999 shall be disposed as the same question of law and fact is involved in all these revisions.

2. Facts are being taken from civil revision No. 4691 of 1990.

3. Parkash Singh filed suit for permanent injunction against the States of Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan restraining them from dispossessing him from the house as detailed in the heading of the plaint forcibly and unlawfully or demolishing the super-structure raised by him. It is alleged in the plaint that he was brought to village Ahli Sadar as "Kami" by Bhakhra Oustees who gave him site on the assurance that he would not be dispossessed therefrom. Thereafter, he constructed two rooms, kitchen and chhappar over the suit property. He has been in possession for the last 30 years and residing in the house constructed by him. He has taken electricity connection and is regularly paying electricity charges and chullah tax. He has also submitted an application for allotment of suit property to him on government rate. Defendants have threatened to dispossess him from the suit property illegally and forcibly. In case, they succeed in doing so, he will suffer irreparable loss. Alongwith the plaint, he made application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for the grant of temporary injunction to the said effect.

4. Defendants contested this application. It was denied that the plaintiff has been residing in the suit property for the last 30 years or electricity connection is in his name. He is not recorded in government record as in possession. Task of re-settlement of Bhakhra Oustees was looked after by the Bhakhra Beas Management Board. Allotment was made to the workers but no allotment was made to the plaintiff. Plaintiff wants to illegally occupy suit property through the instrumentality of the present suit. Since he is not in possession of any land, question of his dispossession or causing of irreparable loss to him does not arise. They (defendants) have every right to prevent illegal encroachment. Plaintiff has no prima facie case nor balance of convenience is in his favour.

5. Vide order dated 29.5.1997, Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Fatehabad granted temporary injunction to the plaintiff restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the suit property, otherwise than in due course of law till the disposal of the suit.

6. State of Haryana went in appeal. Vide order dated 16.8.1999, Additional District Judge, Hisar allowed the appeal.

7. Not satisfied with the order of Additional District Judge, Hisar dated 16.8.1999, plaintiff has come up in revision to this Court.

8. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff is in possession. The suit land was allotted by the State Government to the Bhakhra Oustees. Members of Pursharthi Committee, Ahli Sadar who were in possession of the land gave possession to the plaintiff and others about 30 years ago. Since then, he has been in possession. It was submitted that only the proprietary rights remain to be conferred upon the allottees. It was submitted that the plaintiff is in lawful possession. Earlier suit filed by Parkash Singh against the Pursharthi Committee etc. for permanent injunction was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Appeal of the Pursharthi Committee was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar vide order dated 17.10.1996. It was submitted that letter dated 17.1.1996 vide which suit land was allegedly taken from him is merely a paper transaction. It was submitted that it is a small house which is being occupied by the plaintiff for the last 30 years. Electricity connection is in his name and he is paying chullah tax to the Panchayat. The fact that he has been in possession all along is in the knowledge of defendants. They acquiesced in his possession. They were in possession by the original allot