Jagan Nath vs Estate Officer, H.U.D.A.

G.R. Majithia, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Hissar dated 2.11.1988, who on appeal reversed the order of the trial judge and dismissed the application under 0.39.R. 1,2 CPC filed by the petitioner.

The facts :

The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from taking possession of the property in dispute. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1,2 CPC was also filed which was allowed by the learned judge.

The grouse of the plaintiff is that the respondent has acquired his land but the land on which he has constructed his house was not acquired. No notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) followed by a declaration u/s 6 of the Act was issued expressing intention to acquire the land. The learned trial Judge allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 1,2 CPC only on the ground that the defendant has not been able to prove that any notice under Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the Act was issued to the plaintiff. It will be relevant to reproduce the exact observations made by him which are as under:

"So far as the question is whether the defendants has issued a notice under Sections 4,6 and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, prima facie. I find that defendant has not been able to prove that it had issued the notice."

These observations of the learned Judge indicate that he is not aware of the element principle of law. Notices u/s 4,6 and 9 are not issued by the defendant. The State issues notification u/s 4 of the Act expressing its intention to acquire the land followed by a declaration u/s 6 of the Act and after the issuance of the declaration, the land vests in the State. Notice u/s 9 of the Act is issued, after the acquired land vests in the State, to the occupant to surrender possession. If he was aware of these provisions, he would not have made the above observations.

The respondent challenged the order of the Subordinate Judge before the First Appellant Court and the learned Appellate Judge observed that there was no dispute between the parties, that the house of the plaintiff was acquired and compensation was paid to him and thereafter possession was taken from him. Thus the admitted case before the learned Appellate Judge was that the land under the house of the plaintiff was validly acquired and he had received compensation. The counsel for the plaintiff could not assail the above finding of the learned Appellate Judge.

I do not find any illegality in the well reasoned order of the learned Appellate Judge. The revision is without merit and the same is dismissed. Before, I part with the judgment, to impress upon them by administrative directions, I must impress upon the Subordinate Judges that they should not issue injunction orders in routine manner. They must apply their judicial mind and issue the injunction orders when prima facie a strong case is made out and failure to issue the order will result in an injury which will be beyond redemption. They must keep the rigour of the statute on the subject in mind before issuing such orders. The parties are left to bear their own costs.