Rohtak, September 29
A local court has dismissed plea by a Trust headed by the local Mayor and a Ram Leela society, pertaining to the ownership of a valuable chunk of land located in old Rohtak town. The suit was filed by Sri Prachin Local Ram Leela Society in Rohtak through its president Pawan Mittal and Sri Ram Trust through its president Man Mohan Goel (Rohtak Mayor) for seeking the relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.
They said they are in possession of the suit property for the past 70 years, while the State of Haryana, through the Deputy Commissioner and Collector, are adamant to get the suit property vacated forcibly by demolishing the existing structure, including more than 50 shops.
The plaintiffs were represented by BR Arora and defendants by Pardeep Kumar and Rakesh Sapra.
“The careful perusal of the case reflects that the plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands for obtaining the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, which are equitable relief. It is a settled proposition of law that the person who has not approached the court with clean hands is not entitled to any equitable relief and being so, the plaintiffs are not entitled to have the relief of either declaration or permanent injunction,” said Deepti, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak.
“The plaintiffs have claimed possession over the portion of the suit property. It has already been discussed that the plaintiffs have squarely failed to prove their lawful possession of the suit property. The law is settled to the extent that the unlawful possession, for any period of time, remains always unlawful and it cannot be termed as lawful after any specific period/time. There is nothing on record to substantiate the plaintiff’s lawful possession over the suit property or the portion of the suit property and being so, the plaintiffs are not entitled to equitable relief of permanent injunction,” states the order.
The orders maintains that from the perusal of the case record, it appears that the suit property has neither owned nor lawfully possessed by any of the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs have been trying since decade to obtain any relief or some equitable relief from the courts in order to grab the suit property which is a valuable property situated within municipal limits. Similarly, none of the plaintiffs lawfully possessed any portion of the suit property.
“In view of the aforesaid, the plaintiffs’ contentions that the revenue entries are not reflecting the correct scenario; and that they are the owner in possession of the suit property remained totally unsubstantiated and unproved on record,” the court stated.
Most Read In 24 Hours
Don't MissView All
Chinese authorities from the National Health Commission, at ...
They lifted us on shoulders: Rescue workers recount first meeting with labourers in Uttarakhand tunnel
41 workers were rescued on Tuesday evening after 17 days of ...