G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is peculiar and typical type of injunction which is being challenged in this court where inspite of holding that there is no semblance of title and ownership. The Additional District Judge has reversed the order of Munsif and restrained the State from constructing Legislative Assembly Conference Hall of the State of Rajasthan, on 13. 1. 1981.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Purohit appearing for the State and perused the record. No one has appeared to oppose the revision application today, even-though the case was called twice, once before interval and for the second time afterwards. The impugned piece of land about 20 acers situated in a very important area of Jaipur City near Statute Circle having apex importance is alleged to be of the plaintiff. The plaintiff states that he took a theka on 21. 10. 1980 for a period ending up to 1981 for the purpose of taking grass and fruits and on that basis he claimed ownership and possession of this valuable piece of land. After the order of the High Court dated 14th Sept. 1978, this land was transferred to the Improvement Trust, Jaipur on 17. 11. 1978 and the U. 1. T. has already started construction for constructing Conference Hall. The plaintiff took a contract for one year and that also for taking away grass and fruits from this land therefore no possession has been transferred and question of transfer of ownership does not arise. The Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2 came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not produced any document to show his ownership and all that he states is that for one year he took contract for taking grass and fruits. The learned Munsif was of the opinion that by this contract the plaintiff cannot claim any prima facie case of ownership or possession. The Munsif also came to conclusion that the defendants also admit this land has been transferred to the State Government for construction of Conference Hall by His Highness of Jaipur and the State Government has sanctioned Rs. 50 Lacs for construction. The trial court was of the opinion that neither the plaintiff has got prima facie case nor the balance of convenience is in his favour for granting injunction in his favour, nor the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss, if no injunction is granted. The appellate court observed that the order of the High Court cannot confer any title. It then observed that the plaintiff has submitted receipts of the contract and realising that the possession was only for taking grass and fruit and stated that it is immaterial as to what was the nature of possession and what is the effect of such contract. The first appellate court further held that it is true that plaintiff took part in the auction of the contract in 1980 and it does not prove that he was not in possession earlier. In my opinion from the above drawing an inference of old possession is wholly perverse, because the very fact that the plaintiff took contract for taking grass and fruits shows that the plaintiff was not in possession earlier, nor he was having the ownership of this grass or fruits. Admittedly it nullifies the earlier claim of the plaintiff over it. 1 am also of the opinion that merely because a person is allowed to have contract of taking grass and fruits on some land for a particular year, it cannot be said that he was in possession earlier or remains in possession lateron, Even for that particular period, his entry on land is limited to the object of taking away fruits and grass and it cannot confer any right or title of any kind whatsoever either of possession or ownership. The order was passed by the appellate court on 9th March, 1981 and the restraint order of injunction is for not disturbing the possession of the plaintiff till some legal proceedings are taken
(3.) OBVIOUSLY the contract taken at best terminated on 31. 3. 1981 and therefore after that there is no right even to take fruits or grass from this land. Consequently, the first appellate court could not have granted injunction beyond 31. 3. 1981) in any case. I am also of the opinion that the first appellate court committed serious irregularity in holding that even though Assembly Hall was to be constructed at the sanctioned cost of Rs. 50 lacs yet depriving the State of it would not result in any irreparable loss to the State and balance of convenience is also in favour of depriving the State, from constructing the Assembly Hall. In my considered opinion present one is a case where the Additional District Judge has committed serious illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction by granting injunction, when the plaintiff had neither a prima facie case nor balance of convenience was in his favour nor he would have suffered irreparable loss if the injunction would have been granted. It is difficult to imagine how a person who has come out with a case that he has been given a contract of fruits and grass for one year on a particular land would suffer irreparable loss if there is any interference in his possession, assuming that to be so because the benefit or profit can be measured in terms of money. Similarly when a person can be compensated by money and that too for such limited period, the balance of convenience would have been in favour of the State to allow to construct the Assembly Hall. Depriving the State from constructing Legislative Assembly Hall is a more serious and would certainly result in irreparable loss not only to the State but to the entire people of the State, whose elected representative would be deprived of appropriate Assembly Hall, where they can transacted their legislative business. ;