Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF -respondent No. 1 filed the instant suit for permanent injunction against the defendants (now appellant and proforma respondents) restraining them from dispossessing him from the suit property i.e. plot bearing Khasra No. 498 situated within the revenue estate of Village Bhainswal Kalan, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat. The plaintiff also claimed the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the bricks of illegally constructed street over the suit property.
(2.) AS per the averments made, plaintiff -respondent had constructed a room and boundary wall over the suit property in the year 1990. In the year 2004, a dispute arose between the parties and the defendants illegally and forcibly constructed a pucca street over some portion of the suit property. In April 2008, defendant no. 2/respondent no. 3 issued a notice to the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 directing him to remove the wall constructed by him. The plaintiff -respondent No. 1 demolished the wall with the assurance that the suit property will be demarcated. It is his further case that demarcation was done by Naib Tehsildar on the suit property and in that demarcation, it was found that some portion of the suit property was found encroached upon by the appellant Gram Panchayat. It was alleged that the defendants were bent upon to make the street on the same. Hence, the suit. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit, raising various preliminary objections. It was further pleaded that the suit property was neither owned nor possessed by the plaintiff -respondent no. 1 and was part of the village phirni. The only intention of the plaintiff -respondent was to encroach upon the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. It was further stated that the defendants had constructed pucca street over the suit property being rasta sar -e -aam. It was denied that the defendants have encroached upon the suit property. Rest of the averments made in the plaint were denied and dismissal of the plaint was prayed.
(3.) NO replication was filed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: - 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for? O.P.P. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? O.P.D. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi for file the present suit? O.P.D. 4. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as per Section 13A of Panchayat Village and Common Law Act? O.P.D.;