Civil Revision No. 2266 of 2005 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No. 2266 of 2005

Date of decision: 15.12. 2006

Ram Pal and Ors.

.........Petitioners

Versus

Nasib Chand and Ors.

...........Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Present: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioners

Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate

for the respondent

HEMANT GUPTA

, J (Oral)

The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated

18.02.2005 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur,

whereby the appeal filed by the defendant No. 1 against the order dated

09.08.2003 (Annexure P-2) passed by the trial Court, granting status quo

regarding possession, was set aside while accepting the appeal.

The plaintiff-petitioner filed suit for permanent injunction

restraining defendant No. 1 from interfering and dispossessing the plaintiff

from the land measuring 11 kanals 14 marlas and land measuring 17 kanals

16 marlas as per the jamabandi, attached with the plaint.

It was the case of the plaintiffs that since the year 1972, when the

land was allotted to defendants No. 2 and 3, they were in possession of the

land upto 1981 and thereafter, the actual physical possession of the suit land

was delivered to Shankar Dass, father of the plaintiffs. Though the said

Civil Revision No. 2266 of 2005 2

averments were accepted as correct by Defendants No. 2 and 3 in their

written statement, but it has been found by the First Appellate Court that

from the revenue record, the possession of defendants No. 2 and 3 is gair

marusi aval and that of the defendant No.1 is gair marusi do em in respect

of the land in dispute. It is, thus, found that Defendant No. l is in possession

under Defendants No. 1 and 2 on batai basis.

It has been found that the proceedings initiated by the plaintiff for

correction in the khasra girdawari have remained unsuccessful upto the Court

of learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. It is stated by the

learned counsel for the respondent that such order has been maintained even

by the learned Financial Commisioner.

In the revenue record since the year 1997-98, the Defendant No.1

is recorded as a person in possession as gair marusi do em under the

Defendants No. 1 and 2, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the

order passed by the learned First Appellate Court, which may warrant any

interference by this court in its revisional jurisdiction.

This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Any observation made herein is only for the purpose of deciding

the ad interim injunction application and shall not be taken into consideration

while deciding the main case.

( HEMANT GUPTA)

JUDGE

December 15, 2006

mohan