Hoshiar Singh Etc v. Gaon Sabha, Daryapur Kalan & Others

Sunanda Bhandare, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order of the Senior Sub Judge, Delhi dated 4th April, 1987 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the trial Court dated 20th January, 1987 dismissing their applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.

2. The petitioners claim to be in possession of Khasra No. 4 (4 bighas 9 biswas,) 7 (4 bighas 9 biswas), 8 (4 bighas 16 biswas), 13 (4 big-has 16 biswas) and 14 (4 bighas 9 biswas) of Rectangle No. 65 situated at Village Daryapur Kalan, Delhi as Bhumidars. It is the case of the petitioners that they are likely to be dispossessed by the respondents from this land because this land is going to be distributed to landless people by the respondents.

3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners cannot be dispossessed from the land in question without due process of law and no notice regarding their removal from the land in question was ever issued to them.

4. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the land in question vests with the Gaon Sabha and the petitioners are rank trespassers and they can be thrown out without any notice. It is further contended that if the petitioners claim any right as Bhumidars they can get a declaration to that effect from the revenue Court and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant any injunction.

5. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have not obtained any declaration from the revenue Court regarding their Bhumidari rights.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the two judgments of the Courts below. I find that trial Court as well as the first appellate Court were right in dismissing injunction because it is the revenue Court who was to decide on the title of the petitioners. If the petitioners are trespassers they cannot seek injunction from the civil Court. Admittedly the land in question is being used by the petitioner only for keeping Bitora, Bonga to run Kohlu, Khaliyan and they have their own land in the village where they reside. In any event the question of Bhumidari rights of the petitioners can be gone by the revenue Court and the civil Court cannot go into this question. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners have been in long possession of the land in question they may be given some time to approach the revenue Court to get necessary relief. Learned Counsel for the respondent has very fairly agreed that the petitioners will not be dispossessed from the land in question till 19th December, 1988 to enable them to approach the revenue Court.

7. I, therefore, do not see any merit in the revision petition and while dismissing the same grant time till 19th December, 1988 to the petitioners to vacate the land in question. No costs.