Petitioner challenged the Appellate Court's order dismissing a temporary injunction suit by relying on revenue records showing the land as non-culturable (_banjar_) and reserved for public utilities. Found no illegality in the Lower Appellate Court's judgment refusing injunction against the State.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6607 of 2019
Petitioner :- Smt. Malti Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Puneet Bhadauria Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.08.2019 passed by the Appellate Court allowing Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2017 and thereby setting aside the order of temporary injunction dated 31.5.2016 granted by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff-petitioners in Original Suit No. 14 of 2014.
The trial court had granted temporary injunction by holding that prima facie the suit land appears to be in possession of the plaintiffs and, therefore, they are entitled to temporary injunction.
On the other hand, the Appellate Court has held that as per revenue records the suit land is recorded as banjar land since 1962 (equivalent to fasli year 1371). During the consolidation operations, the number of suit land was 375. Later, it was changed to plot no. 331. These entries, made during consolidation operations, had not been challenged by the petitioners and, therefore, the bar under Section 49 of the U.P Consolidation and Holdings Act would be attracted. In revenue records of subsequent years, the suit land is consistently recorded as banjar land. The Appellate Court has also placed reliance on CH form-41, according to which, the suit land is reserved for public utilities. The
Appellate Court has concluded that prima facie the owner of the suit land is State Govt. and, therefore, no injunction can be granted in favour of the petitioners merely on basis of their alleged possession against the true owner.
Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that since prima facie, the trial court had found the petitioners to be in possession of the suit land, therefore, Appellate Court erred in allowing the appeal. However, he is unable to dispute that presently the land is recorded as banjar in the revenue records. He also admits that an application filed by the petitioners for correction of revenue entries is pending, but till date no correction in favour of the petitioners has been carried out. He is also not in a position to dispute that according to CH form-41, the suit land is recorded as banjar land and was reserved for public use.
Having regard to the same, this Court finds no jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity in the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court so as to warrant interference in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)
Order Date :- 14.10.2019 Chandan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity in the Lower Appellate Court's judgment allowing the appeal to set aside the temporary injunction founded on alleged possession.
Whether supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India warrants interference in the impugned judgment.
Smt. Malti Devi And Another
State Of U.P. And Another
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
