Allahabad High Court
SHIV JIversusNAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD BALLIA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court held that the lower courts correctly refused the temporary injunction and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Shiv Ji, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Nagar Palika Parishad Ballia and others, claiming possession of Plots No.163 and 182 based on his father's name in old records. He also applied for a temporary injunction, which was rejected by the trial court and the appellate court, leading to the present writ petition under Article 227. The respondents argued that the land in question (Plots No.183 and 184) had been acquired by the government in 1956 and that the petitioner had no current revenue record supporting his claim. The court observed that the suit sought only a permanent injunction without a declaration of ownership, and that the petitioner’s case rested solely on possession, which was not established. Consequently, the court held that the lower courts were correct in refusing the temporary injunction and that no interference was warranted. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a temporary injunction can be granted when the suit seeks only a permanent injunction and no declaration of title.
- Whether the petitioner has a valid claim of possession over Plots No.163 and 182 in light of the alleged government acquisition of adjacent plots.
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower courts' refusal to grant temporary injunction.
Subjects
- injunction
- temporary injunction
- permanent injunction
- possession
- land acquisition
- Article 227
- writ petition
- property law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3464 of 2019
Shiv Ji
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Nagar Palika Parishad Ballia And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Mohan Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anand Kumar Pandey, C.S.C., Girdhar
Prasad Tripathi, Pranjal Mehrotra,
Satendra Pratap Singh, Vimlesh Kumar
Rai
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vimlesh Kumar Rai,
learned counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 as well as Sri S.K.
Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no.3.
2. Plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit seeking relief for permanent
injunction against the respondent-State which was registered as Original
Suit No.121 of 2012. In the said suit, an application for grant of
temporary injunction was moved which was rejected by the trial Court,
against which, a misc. civil appeal was filed which was also rejected.
3. The matter came up before this Court and the matter was remanded
back for deciding the appeal again. Post remand, the appellate Court had
dismissed the misc. civil appeal filed by petitioner, hence the present writ
petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the name of his father was
recorded over Plots No.163 and 182, over which, he is in possession.
According to him, Plots No.183 and 184 have been acquired and not Plots
No.163 and 182. Both the Courts below had wrongly rejected the
application for grant of temporary injunction.
5. Sri Vimlesh Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for Nagar Palika
Parishad submits that photocopy of Khatauni for Fasli Year 1362-1368
was filed which was not accepted by the Court, and findings were
A227 No. 3464 of 2019
2
returned to the effect that photocopy was filed and name of the father
existed 60 years back and present revenue record does not reflect the
name of either father or petitioner. According to him, land numbered as
183 and 184 was already acquired way back in the year 1956.
6. Sri S.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing has submitted that
the suit is only for permanent injunction and no declaration has been
sought. The entire pleadings reflect that case is totally based on the
possession of plaintiff-petitioner.
7. I have heard counsel for parties and perused the material on record.
8. It is an admitted fact that the suit has been filed seeking relief for
permanent injunction against respondent-State. No relief for declaration
has been sought by plaintiff.
9. From reading of plaint, it appears that entire case of plaintiff-petitioner
rests upon the possession over land in dispute. Once, there is no relief for
declaration and the findings have been returned by both the Courts below
that Arazi No.183 and 184 was acquired by the Government in the year
1956 and there is no document to demonstrate ownership in respect of
Khasra No.163 and 182, both the Courts below have rightly refused to
grant temporary injunction. The first principle granting temporary
injunction is to see as to whether the plaintiff has claimed the ownership
along with possession over the property in dispute.
10. In the instant case, only relief for permanent injunction has been
sought on the strength of possession over the property for the last 60
years.
11. No interference is required by this Court in the order impugned.
12. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
September 23, 2026
SK Goswami
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…