Allowed

Mange Ram v. Gram Panchayat Mehrana

Rajasthan HC6 Aug 2019CW/7193/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the appellate order that quashed a temporary injunction. The Court held that since the petitioner's title to the land remained valid as per the revisional court's order, the injunction could not be swept aside merely due to the pendency of a writ petition by the respondents. The trial court order allowing the injunction was restored.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the impugned appellate order dated 26.04.2019 is quashed and set aside; the order of the Trial Court dated 22.04.2017 is restored.

Mange Ram Vs Gram Panchayat Mehrana — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7193/2019

¶3

Mange Ram S/o Shri Roop Ram Ji, Aged About 64 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Gram Panchayat Mehrana, Through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Mehrana, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

¶7

Gram Panchayat Mehrana, Through Gram Sewak And Secretary, Gram Panchayat Mehrana, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Thanvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

06/08/2019

¶13

The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.04.2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadra, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), vide which the appeal preferred by the respondents against the order dated 22.04.2017, passed by learned Civil Judge, Bhadra, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), has been allowed

¶14

Briefly narrated the facts of the present case, are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for injunction and declaration against the present respondents, inter alia with the assertion that he is not only having a valid Patta in his favour but also having

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CW-7193/2019]

¶17

long possession over the contentious land for which, he cannot be evicted without following due process of law.

¶18

Along with the suit aforesaid, an application for grant of Temporary Injunction was also filed. The Trial Court, considering the fact that the petitioner was having a valid Patta in his favour, allowed the Temporary Injunction application, vide its order dated 22.04.2017, while directing the parties to maintain status quo as shown in the Commissioner’s report.

¶19

The respondents herein preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the Trial Court, which has been allowed by the Appellate Court, in light of an order passed by this Court in writ petition No.768/2017, which is still pending consideration.

¶20

Oppugning the order dated 26.04.2019, Mr. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, narrating the facts submitted that the petitioner is having a valid Patta in his favour; which stood cancelled by the Gram Panchayat on 10.05.2016. The petitioner filed a revision petition thereagainst and the revisional authority, namely, Additional Collector, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, allowed the said revision petition; as a result wehreof, the petitioner’s Patta was restored and the same is valid as on date.

¶21

Mr. Thanvi further stated that against the revisional order, passed by the Additional Collector, Nohar, the respondent Gram Panchayat filed a writ petition (SBCWP No.768/2017), in which, this Court, on 10.02.2017, directed the parties to maintain the status quo. The order dated 10.02.2017, passed by this Court, came to be modified on 08.05.2018, in terms that the petitioner was restrained from raising further construction over the contentious land.

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[CW-7193/2019]

¶24

Mr. Thanvi argued that notwithstanding the pendency of the above referred writ petition (SBCWP No.768/2017), the petitioner’s title, as of today, is a valid and until and unless the order of the revisional court is reversed by this Court, in the writ petition filed by the respondent Gram Panchayat, his title cannot be questioned, and as such, the order passed by the Trial Court, which essentially hinges upon the petitioner’s valid title, remain a just order. Such order ought not to have been interfered by the Appellate Court in the guise of order passed in the Writ Petition (768/2017), filed by Gram Panchayat.

¶25

Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent Gram Panchayat, submitted that the petitioner has been granted a Patta in johar paytan’’ land and such Patta is per se illegal and hence, he cannot be permitted to enjoy his possession over the disputed land.

¶26

Mr. Choudhary further argued that if the injunction, as granted by the Trial Court, vide order dated 22.04.2017 is restored as it is, the same would deprive the Gram Panchayat from taking possession of the land in question, even if the writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat succeeds.

¶27

Having considered submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that as far as title of the petitioner is concerned, in light of the Revisional Court’s order, the same is valid, until writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat is allowed. If the petitioner is having a valid title, he cannot be scooped out, merely on account of pendency of the writ petition filed by the respondent Gram Panchayat.

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[CW-7193/2019]

¶30

In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed. The order of the Appellate Court dated 26.04.2019, is quashed and set aside and that of the Trial Court, passed on 22.04.2017, is restored.

¶31

Needless to observe that if the writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat ultimately succeeds, they shall be free to place such order before the Trial Court and, the Court concerned shall decide the same in accordance with law.

¶32

The Stay Petition also stands disposed of in the above

¶33

terms.

¶34

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶35

16-skm/-

Mange Ram v. Gram Panchayat Mehrana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mange Ram v. Gram Panchayat Mehrana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Koju Khan Vs State and Ors.

M/S. the Fog City ( the Nerdy Beans ) Vs the Commissioner of Police Jodhpur

M/S. Caffixo Vs the Commissioner of Police Jodhpur

Shri Sonana Khetlaji (Shri Kshetrapalji) Trust Vs Assistant Commissioner

Kailash Vs Gram Panchayat Mehrana

Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd. Vs Lalchand Chablani