Ranjit Singh. J. - (1.) THE petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining respondents No. 1 to 4 from interfering in their possession over the suit property and from changing the nature thereof and further from alienating the same. The petitioners also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 seeking direction for the respondents not to interfere in their possession changing or alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit. This application was rejected by the trial Court. The appeal against the said order is also dismissed. Both the orders are now impugned in the present revision petition.
(2.) THE petitioners have claimed that a suit property measuring 6 Kanals 16 marlas owned by Municipal Committee, Rewari is being used by the petitioners, who belong to Chamar Community for the purpose of Rangdari. This property is allegedly allotted to ancestors of the petitioners prior to the year 1900. The petitioners claimed to be in possession of the suit property ever since then. It is alleged that respondent Nos. l to 4 are threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners as they want to alienate the suit land and hence the suit by the petitioners. Respondents Municipal Committee, Rewari has filed reply to the application taking a stand that the petitioners being from Jatav Caste have no concern with the suit property. It is otherwise conceded that the persons belonging to Chatnaran community were licensee over the property, which is possessed and owned by the Municipal Committee, Rewari. It is further claimed that no work of tanning is being done over the suit property. It is also claimed that there is no license now with the petitioner and even if there be one with them, then it can be revoked at any time without assigning any reason. Additionally, the respondents have also relied upon the ratio of law laid down in the case of Premji Ratansey Shah and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 1995 (1) CCC 1, in which it is held that the interest or right not shown to be in existence can not be protected by injunction and that the injunction can not be issued against the true owner., Relying upon the case of Mohan Lal v. , it is submitted that the courts have to bear in mind and see as to whether the grant of injunction would be conducive or detrimental in public interest. Counsel representing the respondents before the appellate Court had produced a Haryana Government Gazette Notification dated 6.9.1982 of Haryana Municipal (Dangerous and Offensive Traders) bye -laws 1982, wherein a provision was made for requirement of a special licence for using any premises for storage of dry or wet hides and skins, boiling bones, blood or offal. It was accordingly pleaded that the petitioners had failed to show if they had obtained a licence for doing the job of tanning.
(3.) MR . Arun Palli, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, by referring to the pleadings as averred, says that the petitioners are shown to be in possession of the suit land and could be dispossessed only in accordance with the procedure established bylaw and, as such, could rightly ask for interim injunction as prayed for. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the case of Rame Gowda v. : (2004)1SCC769 . It is observed in this case that occupant in 'settled position' can not be dispossessed without recourse of law. For determining the 'settled position' the test laid down in Puran Singh Case : AIR1975SC1674 reiterated.;