Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sri Ram Leela Committee v. Gaon Sabha And Another - WRIT - C No. 23058 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 9705 (21 May 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 26.4.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No.4), Kanpur Dehat whereby the Misc. Appeal, that had been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Dehat rejecting the injunction application for grant of temporary injunction in Original Suit No. 284 of 2004,  was dismissed. A further relief has been sought for restraining the respondents from raising any construction on the plot in dispute.

The petitioner Sri Ram Leela Committee claims that Ram Leela was being performed every year on the plot in dispute which on the abolition of Zamindari was recorded as 'Banjar'. The problem arose in the year 1997 when the Gram Pradhan submitted a proposal to the Additional Development Officer for auction of the plots. The Additional Development Officer passed an order on 6.11.1997 accepting the proposal for auction and permitted the Gaon Sabha to realise the 'Tehbazari'. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 6794 of 2004 which was disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat to decide the representation. The representation was rejected by the District Magistrate by a detailed order dated 19.6.2004 against which the petitioner filed another writ petition being Writ Petition No. 30119 of 2004. The Court refused to interfere with the impugned order as the petition raised disputed questions of fact. The petition was, accordingly, dismissed. It was, however, observed in the order that as the petitioner wanted to approach the Civil Court by filing a Civil Suit and obtain some interim relief, status quo should be maintained for a period of ten days from the date of the order.

The petitioner then filed Original Suit No. 282 of 2004 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Dehat along with an application for grant of temporary injunction. This application was rejected by the order dated 3.3.2006 against which the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Appeal which was also rejected by the order dated 26.4.2007.

A perusal of the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court clearly shows that the petitioner did not file any evidence before the Courts below which could demonstrate that the name of the petitioner was recorded in the Revenue records. The Lower Appellate Court also recorded a finding that the plaintiff-petitioner was not in possession on the disputed plots as three shops had admittedly been constructed by the Gaon Sabha.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the Courts below committed an error in rejecting the injunction application and in view of the fact that Ram Leela was being continuously held in the previous years on the land in dispute, the Courts below should have granted interim relief in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner.

I have carefully perused the orders by the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court. The Courts below have examined the various documents on record and recorded a categorical finding that the name of the plaintiff was not recorded in the Revenue records or in any other records. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the position that the name of the plaintiff-petitioner was not recorded in the Revenue records. In such circumstances, there was no prima facie case made in favour of the plaintiff.

There is, therefore, no infirmity in the impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt/- 21.5.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.