VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 8-06-2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which the appeal filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 herein against the order dated 27-04-2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kaithal, granting ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioners, was allowed and the application moved by the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.
(2.) THE suit was filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC on the allegation that the suit land detailed in para 1 of the plaint was under the ownership of the plaintiffs-petitioner being proprietors/Biswedars of village and, therefore, they had got every right in the suit land. It was also pleaded that they had got share in the suit land being Jumla Malkan Bah Hakrast-Rakba and they had the interest in the suit land. As the proprietors are numerous in number, the suit was filed in representative capacity. The case set up was that the suit land was mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat, Pabala, vide mutation No. 317 which was sanctioned on 4-07-1992 by virtue of Act No. 9 of 1992, but the said Act was struck down by this Court in the case titled as Jai Singh v. State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCR(Civil) 578 P&H : (2003-2) PLR 658 and it was held by this Court vide order dated 13-3-2003 that the land which was reserved for common purposes shall vest in the Gram Panchayat, whereas the remaining land would vest in the proprietors of the village. In view of the said judgment, the plaintiff-petitioners applied to the competent authority for sanctioning the mutation which was done on 24-10- 2005. The mutation was sanctioned in favour of Jumla Malkan Bahad Hakdaran Hasab Rasad Rakba. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that the suit land was never reserved for common purposes and accordingly the proprietors including the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the same and thus mutation No. 425 in favour of Gram Panchayat had no concern with the suit land.
(3.) IT was further pleaded that now the defendant-respondents in collusion with the District Administration threatened the plaintiffs and other proprietors of the village by putting the suit land for auction for cultivation purposes. Along with the suit an application for temporary injunction was made.;