IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Permanent Injunction – Order granting a permanent injunction cannot be set aside in a cursory and callous manner – A permanent injunction is an order of substance and ought to be treated as such.
(2) Writ Jurisdiction – High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate evidence and arrive at a finding of facts unless authorities below had either exceeded its jurisdiction or acted perversely.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13th May, 2013¹[Impugned order] in Civil Review Petition No.118411 of 2013 in Writ Petition (C) No.9192 of 2007 and the final order and judgment dated 17th January, 2013 in Writ Petition (C) No.9192 of 2007²[Impugned Judgment] passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby the judgment and order dated 27 th August, 2004 passed by the Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector (City), Ghaziabad, in Case No.05 of 2003-04, against the order dated 13th September, 2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut, in Revision No.135 of 2003-04 and against the order dated 29th December, 2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner in Review Application in Revision No.135/2003-04, was set aside. The Civil Review Petition No.118411 of 2013³[Impugned Order] preferred by the respondent herein was dismissed vide order dated 13th May, 2013.

3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: -

This dispute relates to Khasra No.103 (earlier known as Khasra No.84) (hereinafter referred to as “disputed land”). In 1970, the disputed land was recorded as ‘Johad (Pond)’ in the Revenue Records. In 2003, One Khacheru (respondent herein) asserted a right over the disputed land, citing the alleged patta for Khasra No.103, as per the revenue records of the year 1981-82. One Ajay Singh (appellant herein) filed an application under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, asserting that the disputed land was Johad (Pond) before the consolidation operation was initiated rather than the "Oosar"⁴[In some other places, the record spells this as ‘Usar’] land and the said land was excluded from the consolidation scheme as it served as a water reservoir, used by the villagers to provide water for their cattle and other usage.

4. It was contended by the respondent before the Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector, while relying on the alleged patta based on the revenue entries of the year 1981-82, that the disputed land was allotted in his name as Bhumidhar, 22 years ago and the disputed land was not Johad (Pond) instead, was an “Oosar” land, which has acquired its current depth as a result of digging out the mud for use. Further, it was contended that such objections of the appellant were time-barred.

5. The Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector, Ghaziabad, vide order dated 27th August, 2004 examined the evidence on record, considering the sole issue of whether the alleged patta for Khasra No.103 is false and the entries in Khatauni on the basis of the said patta, are fictitiously made. It was concluded that according to the report of the Tehsildar, no allotment file for the alleged patta is available in the Tehsil Office, and though the alleged patta is claimed to have been allotted in 1981 but the allotment register shows it to be made in the year 1978-79. Therefore, the entries made in the Khatauni are fictitious, and the same were not proved by the respondent. Further, it was ordered that the revenue entries be corrected and the alleged patta be considered as cancelled.

6. Aggrieved by order dated 27th August, 2004, the respondent filed a Revision Petition before the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Additional Commissioner, Meerut, which was dismissed vide order dated 13th September, 2006, upholding the findings of the authority to the effect that the entries were fictitious and the alleged patta in favour of the respondent, was rightly cancelled by the Collector as a consequence thereof.

7. The appellant also initiated proceedings, being Original Suit No.372 of 2003 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Ghaziabad, seeking a permanent injunction against the respondent regarding the disputed land. The suit was proceeded ex-parte on default of the appearance of the respondent. On 7th November, 2005, the Civil Judge passed an ex-parte decree in favour of the appel