The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging orders denying an interim injunction in a property suit. The Court held the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case and did not draw the jurisdictional court into error.
The petition was dismissed, and the interim order passed in a related matter was vacated.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 145 of 2010.
Date of decision: 1.7.2010.
Parma Nand …..Petitioner. Vs.
State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents.
Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. G. D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mrs. Subh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Y.P.Sood, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) .
Caveat Petition No. 354 of 2010.
Mr. Y.P.Sood, learned counsel has put appearance on
behalf of caveator - respondent. The petition stands disposed of.
CMPMO No. 145 of 2010.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
…2…
2009 affirming order dated 17.11.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jubbal in Civil Misc. No. 43/6 of 2009.
(a) That the defendants may kindly be restrained permanently from raising the construction of car parking or any type of other construction over the suit land and also from changing its nature as well as from interfering in any manner over the suit land comprising above mentioned khasra No. 518/2, 518/3, 518/4, 634/1 and 628/1 which are the parts of new khasra numbers 518, 634 and 628 as submitted above, situated in revenue estate/ Mohal Nagar Panchayat Jubbal, Tehsil Jubbal Distt. Shimla Himachal Pradesh as per Tatima of Tafawat (difference) prepared by the settlement Naib Tehsildar Jubbal Circle on 27.6.2002 which has been enclosed with the plaint.
(b) In case the defendant succeed in raising any type of structure over the aforesaid suit land or any part of it during the pendency of the suit, as they have also threatened and declared, in that event the defendants may also kindly be directed to dismantle and remove the said structure from the suit land at their own risk and cost.
…3…
land has been wrongly and illegally merged with new khasra Nos. 518, 628 and 634. On having come to know the wrong revenue entries, the petitioner applied for correction of revenue entries before the Settlement Collector, Shimla, who appointed Naib Tehsildar, Jubbal for inspection and verification and Naib Tehsildar, Jubbal submitted his report dated 27.6.2002 and found the objection of the petitioner correct and made report to the effect that some part of old khasra No. 5036 has been wrongly merged in new khasra No. 518 shown as new khasra Nos. 518/2, 518/3, 518/4 in the report dated 27.6.2002. It was also found that some portion of old khasra Nos. 5036 and 5037 was illegally merged with khasra Nos. 628 and 634 shown as khasra Nos. 634/1 and 628/1. The Naib Tehsildar has also reported that khasra Nos. 518, 628 and 634 have been wrongly shown in the ownership of State of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner has contended that he is still in possession of khasra Nos. 518/2, 518/3, 518/4, 634/1 and 628/1.
…4…
Judge on 5.4.2010 has affirmed the order of the Civil Judge, hence the petition under Art. 227 of Constitution of India.
…5…
Moreover, Naib Tehsildar was directed by the Settlement Collector during the correction proceedings to report and ultimately the Settlement Collector has rejected the application of the petitioner for correction of entries. In these circumstances, the report of the Naib Tehsildar does not survive independently and it has merged in the order of Settlement Collector.
…6…
structure raised during pendency of suit. The courts below have the jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders. The scope of interference under Art. 227 of Constitution of India is very limited. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference. There is no merit in the petition.
dismissed.
CMP No. 403 of 2010.
12. The interim order passed on 28.5.2010 is vacated and
the application is dismissed.
July 1, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), ( Hem ) Judge.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 despite the petitioner failing to establish a prima facie case.
Whether the impugned orders below were without jurisdiction.
Whether the petitioner has succeeded in establishing ownership possession and irreparable loss in his favour.
Parma Nand
State of H.P.
Kuldip Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
