RAJ SINGH Vs. RAJBALA
LAWS(P&H)-2012-7-111
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on July 27,2012

RAJ SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
RAJBALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

L.N.MITTAL,J.(ORAL) : - (1.) ALLOWED as prayed for. Main Case : Defendants have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning orders of both the courts below, whereby temporary injunction has been granted to the respondent-plaintiff Rajbala.
(2.) PLAINTIFF filed suit alleging that she has purchased plot measuring 01 kanal 09 marlas out of khasra no. 341 vide two sale deeds dated 06.01.2006 and is owner in possession thereof and has enclosed the same with boundary walls. The defendants, without any right, title or interest, allegedly threatened to demolish the wall, depicted by letters AF in the site plan (Annexure P-6) and to dispossess the plaintiff therefrom. Plaintiff sought injunction restraining the defendants from doing so. By moving separate application, temporary injunction to this effect was also claimed during pendency of the suit. Defendants, while admitting that plaintiff has purchased share in khasra no.341, pleaded that plaintiff has encroached upon land measuring 6 feet x 80 feet of public street by including it in her plot. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gohana, vide order dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure P-3), allowed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction and restrained the defendants from dismantling the wall AF and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property depicted by letters ABCDEF in the site plan, till final decision of the suit. Appeal against the said order, preferred by the defendants, has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Sonepat, vide judgment dated 24.05.2012 (Annexure P-5). Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed this revision petition. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.
(3.) THERE is no serious dispute regarding the property purchased by the plaintiff. However, dispute is whether the plaintiff has made encroachment on any part of the public street or not. Even if the plaintiff has allegedly made encroachment on part of the public street, the only remedy with the defendants or other villagers or Gram Panchayat is to seek ejectment of the plaintiff from the encroached portion in due course of law.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.