Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the two orders passed by the two Courts below dated 24.2.2004 and 27.3.2004 by which the trial Court rejected the petitioner's application for grant of temporary injunction and the appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant against the order of the trial Court.
(3.) It appears from the facts of the case that petitioner claimed that a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat to allot the land to several persons in which petitioner was also there and the Gram Panchayat decided to issue 'Pattas' to those allottees. According to petitioner, the respondents forcibly entered into the property in dispute, which belongs to the petitioner, by virtue of the resolution dated 10.10.1983. According to learned counsel for the petitioner since there is a resolution in favour of the petitioner and the respondents are the trespassers over the land in dispute and petitioner sought relief of declaration, possession and injunction and, therefore, during the pendency of the suit the respondents cannot alter the property in dispute. The two courts below committed serious error of law in giving undue importance to the fact of submitting FR by the police on the FIR lodged by the petitioner. It is submitted the respondents have no right, title or interest in the property and they are not claiming their title also.;