By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order of the trial court passed on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC by which interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. The petitioners then preferred an appeal and the appeal has been rejected and the order of the trial court has been maintained.
A suit has been filed for permanent injunction by the plaintiffs-respondents being Suit No. 207 of 2012 for restraining the defendants-petitioners from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs-respondents with respect to Araji No. 235. It was claimed that the said land under the consolidation proceedings has been reserved for the plaintiffs' school as its playground and in the revenue record the same has been endorsed as Banjar.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the same Araji the SDM has allotted certain portion of the land for residential purposes and the petitioners have purchased through a registered sale deed from one allottee which is in possession of the petitioners and has constructed the dwelling house.
It is submitted that against allotment to the original allottee, i.e, the vendee, namely, Mia Safi Mohd., the plaintiffs had filed an objection before the SDM which was rejected on 21.7.1990. Thereafter, a revision being Revision No. 98 of 1990 under Section 333 of the U.P.Land Revenue Act was filed which was also rejected. Thereafter, a second revision was filed being Revision No. 52 of 1990-1991 that was also rejected in the year 1995. As such, the petitioners-defendants have valid right over the property and are in possession pursuant to a registered sale deed.
The matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to respondents returnable at an early date.
Learned counsel for the petitioners shall take steps for service of notice upon the said respondents within a week.
List after service of notice.
Till the next date of listing, the parties to the suit are directed to maintain status quo. In case no construction has been raised on the property or in case any construction has been raised, no further construction shall be raised by the plaintiffs.
Order Date :- 28.7.2014 SKM