Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffs against the order of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dated 11th March, 1986, affirming the order of the trial Court by which ad interim injunction was refused to them.
(2.) Briefly, the facts are that Dr. S. Rozdan was the owner of property Nos. 20 and 20-A situated in Cantonment Area of Amritsar. He gifted the aforesaid properties to his wife Smt. Kanwar Rani. She sold the same to the plaintiffs vide sale deed dated 16th Oct., 1974. The Union of India served a notice on them that the Bungalow No. 20 and the land underneath it measuring 331 acres was an old grant and that according to the terms of the grant it was entitled to resume it. Consequently, it resumed the same on payment of Rs 72,205.00 as value of the construction standing thereon. The plaintiffs challenged the said order in the civil Court by instituting a suit. They also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that ad interim injunction be issued against the Union of India-the defendant not to take possession of the property till decision of the suit. It was contested by the defendant, who pleaded that it was entitled to resume the property under the conditions of the old grant by paying compensation of the construction standing on the property. The learned trial Court did not grant the ad interim injunction In appeal before the Additional District Judge, the order of the trial Court was affirmed. The plaintiffs have come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there were two Bungalows at the site namely : Bungalow No. 20 and Bungalow No. 20-A and the notice for resumption has been issued regarding Bungalow No. 20 only. Thus the order of resumption is with regard to a part of the property which could not be done. On the other hand, Mr. Brar has argued that in fact the number of the Bungalow was 20 and notice is regarding whole of the land which is described as measuring 3.31 acres Therefore, it cannot be said that the notice is with regard to a part of a property.;