Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. MANSI MALIK, ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL
JUDGE/ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER : NORTH-WEST
DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
CS SCJ 653/23
SAT NARAIN Vs. GAON SABHA NIJAMPUR
02.09.2025
ORDER ON THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2
CPC.
(1) Briefly stated, it is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the sons of
Late Sh. Dharampal and grandsons of Late Sh. Chander Singh. Sh.
Chandar Singh and his another son Sh. Jaipal were held to be
having possessory rights during consolidation vide order dated
11.06.1980 passed by Settlement Officer in case no. SO(C)78. Vide
the said order, it is recorded that Sh. Chandar Singh grandfather of
the plaintiff and Sh. Jaipal uncle of the plaintiffs were in physical
cultivatory possession of land measuring 120 Bigha in old Khasra
No. 1, 2 and 3 at Village, Nijampur, Delhi and it was directed that
their name should be recorded as an occupant under the Gaon
Sabha records. It is thus the case of the plaintiff that the land in
question was owned by Gaon Sabha but physical possession of the
same was with the grandfather and uncle of the plaintiff. It is
further stated that on the basis of the Order dated 11.06.1980, new
Khasra Nos. were allotted to Sh. Chandar and Sh. Jaipal and the
physical possession of the new khasra Nos were also handed over
Pg no. 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
to the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs and was recorded in
Khasra Girdawaries. Copy of the Khasra Girdawaries of the year
1981-82 have been annexed with the plaint. It is further submitted
that, thereafter, the physical possession of the land in question is
with the plaintiffs till date and is recorded by the revenue official in
the Khasra Girdawaries. Copies of the Khasra Girdawaries for the
year 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 have also been placed on
record by the plaintiff. It is submitted that despite the plaintiffs
being in physical possession for more than the last three years, the
defendant is still trying to take forcible possession of the suit
property from them. Thus, it is prayed that the defendant/Gaon
Sabha be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit
property i.e. land khasra no. 16/21 (3-24), 22(3-18), 23(4-7),
24/1(1-12), 20/13-14, 2/1(1-18), 10(3-12), 37/16/2/1 (1-8), 23/2(1-
0) situated at Village Nizampur, Delhi, without due process of law
till the disposal of the present suit.
(2) Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendant submits that the
defendant/Gaon Sabha is the recorded owner of the suit property
and that no injunction can be granted against the recorded owners.
No further arguments were addressed by the counsel for the
defendant nor any written submission/documents were placed on
record despite opportunity.
(3) Heard. Considered. Record perused.
(4) It is a well settled law that for proving himself to be entitled to a
Pg no. 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
temporary injunction, the plaintiff has to prove three things: -
(i) That a strong
prima facie case is made out in his favour.
(ii) That the balance of convenience also lies in his favour.
(iii) That the refusal of injunction will cause irreparable injury to
him.
(5) In the instant case, the plaintiffs have placed on record the Khasra
Girdawaries from the year 2022 till the year 2025. A perusal of the
said documents shows that it is stated therein that Sh. Sunil Kumar
and Sh. Sat Narain i.e. plaintiffs in the present matter have been
recorded to be in possession of Khasra No. 16/21 (3-14), 22( 3-18),
23(4-7), 24/1(1-12),20/1(13-14), 2/1(1-18), 10(3-12). It is not being
denied by the plaintiffs that the defendant may be recorded owner
of the aforesaid land as per the revenue records but the physical
possession lies with the plaintiffs on basis of the documents
produced by them. Therefore, they are praying that they not be
forcibly dispossessed from the suit property. As the possession of
the plaintiffs over the suit property is established at this stage on
basis of the documents on record, a prima facie case is made out in
favour of the plaintiffs.
(6) Further, it may be true that plaintiff does not have any
title/ownership upon the land in question, however, balance of
convenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs since they have been in
occupation of the said land since a long time in whatever capacity it
might be. Lastly, if the plaintiffs are dispossessed unlawfully from
the land in question, it is clear that irreparable damage shall be
Pg no. 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
caused to them as the same cannot be compensated in monetary
terms.
(7) Accordingly, the present application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2
CPC is allowed.
The defendant is restrained from dispossessing the
plaintiffs from the suit property i.e land bearing Khasra No. 16/21
(3-14), 22( 3-18), 23(4-7), 24/1(1-12),20/1(13-14), 2/1(1-18), 10(3-
12) without due process of law till the disposal of the present suit.
Announced in an Open Court
on 02.09.2025.
(Mansi Malik)
ACJ/ARC/North-West District
Rohini District Courts, Delhi.
Pg no. 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --