MADAN, J. - (1.) BY way of present revision petition, the petitioner has raised the grievance that he had filed a civil suit for grant of permanent injunction wherein, he also sought for interim injunction during the pendency of the proceedings before the court of Munsif (West), Ajmer wherein he prayed inter-alia that he was in possession of 500 sq. yards of land falling in urban area in Khasra No. 1801 and has his ancestral house thereon which was constructed prior to the year 1976. He further contended that since the respondents were threatening to take over the possession of the land altogether with construction thereon without observing due process of law and since they were threatening to demolish the construction without issuing the notice as per the requirements of Section 91 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (for short the `uit Act"), he was within his right to take over his possession. It is significant to mention in this context that suit was only for issuance of interim injunction and not for declaration or possession. The proceedings were contested by the respondents wherein, the respondents had contended inter-alia that the State Government (the then UIT) had taken the possession of the land in question by observing due process of law as per the requirement of the provisions of the UIT Act as on 17. 10. 1987 for the public purpose of establishing housing colony known as "panchsheel Nagar Grah Nirman Yojana" in District Ajmer as per the scheme duly notified to the public at large. The civil suit was filed on 29. 3. 1994 by the petitioner subsequent to the aforesaid project which was launched by the then UIT for establishing housing colony as aforesaid over the land in question in Ajmer. This fact shows that it is not only the petitioner, but the public at large had due intimation regarding aforesaid scheme which was launched by the instrumentality of the State for the benefit of the public at large.
(2.) BY taking judicial notice of the provisions of the UIT Act more particularly Section 90 of the UIT which deals with the powers of the trust to prevent or demolish a building and also penalities for non-compliance with the notice as well as keeping in view the fact that neither balance of convenience nor any prima-facie case is made out by the plaintiff for the relief of ad-interim injunction, the trial Court declined the same. After perusal of the impugned order dated 17. 3. 1994, it is significant to mention in this context that the trial Court has further observed that plaintiff without taking prior permission of the Authority had commenced the construction and he himself is responsible for such illegal construction and keeping in view the said facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court had come to the conclusion that no case was made out for grant of interim injunction muchless, permanent injunction in the suit. During the course of hearing, Mr. R. N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently contended at the bar that since the State Govt. (the then UIT) had taken lawful possession of the land in question as on 17. 10. 1987 for the sole public purpose of establishing housing colony known as "panchsheel Nagar Grah Nirman Yojana" which was duly launched by the then UIT after due notice to the public at large, no injustice or injury, muchless irreparable injury would ensue to the petitioner since he had an alternative remedy of claiming damages/compensation in the event of loss suffered by him consequent to the possession of the land in question having been taken by the respondents. He has further contended that the contention of the petitioner that possession had been taken without issuing notice as per the requirements of Section 91 of the UIT Act without affording him any opportunity of being heard would not arise in the instant case since, the requirements of the provisions of the UIT Act were fully complied with before the possession was taken. By way of alternative argument, learned Additional Advocate General contended that even if the petitioner had suffered any monitory loss, he is entitled to compensation by way of filing a suit for damages/compensation or pursuing for alternative remedy which may be warranted in accordance with law. In support of his contention advanced at the bar, Mr. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the matters of Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs. The Bharatpur Cold Storage P. Ltd; (1) and Kanhaiya Lal Bhargava vs. Cheetar Mal and ors. In both the matters the similar controversy had arisen for consideration of this Court. In RSEB vs. The Bharatpur Cold Storage P. Ltd. (supra), the defendant-appellant RSEB was restrained by the trial Court from disconnecting the electricity supply in the premises of plaintiff's cold storage by the impugned order which resulted in filing of the appeal before this Court. This Court after taking over-all view of the matter, was of the view that while it is at the discretion of the court to pass an interim order as per the requirements of Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC and it is also well settled that the discretion exercised by the trial Court should not lightly be interfered with, but when the order is perverse or is contrary to the provisions of law, interference would become inevitable to secure the ends of justice. The appeal preferred by the RSEB was allowed and the impugned order of the trial Court was set-aside. Similar view was reiterated by this Court in the matter of Kanhaiya Lal vs. Cheetar Mal & Ors. (supra) wherein, this Court on over all view of the matter observed that from the facts and circumstances of the case pleaded before the court, it could not be inferred that if the relief of injunction is not granted, the plaintiff would be sub-jected to any irreparable loss since, he has the option of pursuing alternative remedy of claiming damages/compensation by filing a suit before the competent forum.
(3.) HEARD and perused the material placed on the record as well as the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the facts as so stated in the present revision petition. Prima-facie, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by upsetting or reversing the well reasoned findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge in its order dated 17. 3. 1994 which was affirmed by the Appellate Court in CMA No. 43/94. I am of the view that law is well settled that revisional powers of this Court should be exercised very sparingly and in very appropriate cases where injustice has occurred or any illegality has occurred or the jurisdiction has been exercised by the courts below in such a manner so as to result in abuse of process of law. In my view, none of the aforesaid requirements having been made out by the petitioner in the instant case. I am in perfect agreement with the ratio of the decisions of this Court as referred to above. I do not find any jurisdiction to take contrary view of the matter. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed summarily. If the petitioner is so advised he may pursue the alternative remedy of filing a suit for compensation/damages or for any other alternative remedy in accordance with law. . ;