Justice Romesh Verma was hearing a revision petition filed by Prakash, who challenged an appellate court’s order of Febraury directing him to remove obstructions from the access road leading to Vidya Sagar’s property.
“Interim protection order as passed by the competent court has to be implemented, and no one can be permitted to violate the same. The majesty of the court orders has to be upheld. On account of the defiance as made by the present petitioner, respondent number 1 (Vidya Sagar) was compelled to approach the trial court for grant of police assistance. Once the interim protection was granted to the present respondent number one, then the same cannot be permitted to be violated to his detriment,” the July 16 order read.
Mother sold property to diabled man
The petitioner, Om Prakash, filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated November 9, 2020, along with a declaration, injunction and possession, arguing that the sale deed executed by his mother, Geetan Devi, in favour of Vidya Sagar was illegal, null and void and not binding on his rights.
He challenged the sale deed on the ground that the land formed part of the joint Hindu family property and that he was its Karta. He also claimed that the land had originally been granted as Nautor land (government-owned barren or wastelands that can be allotted or regularised for locals to use for agriculture, or residential purposes) and, therefore, could not have been alienated in favour of Vidya Sagar.
Claiming that he looked after his illiterate and elderly mother, Om Prakash alleged that Vidya Sagar, a retired public servant, had fraudulently procured the sale deed by misleading her and getting it registered.
Story continues below this ad
Vidya Sagar, who is a person with 100 per cent disability, denied the allegations and stated that he had lawfully purchased the land for Rs 3 lakh after paying the full sale consideration. He asserted that he bought the land to secure ingress and egress to his house and had been using the passage since 1994-95.
Justice Romesh Verma noted that if the 100 per cent would not get the police assistance to enforce the injunction order, he would suffer huge and irreparable loss.
During the pendency of the case, both Om Prakash and Vidya Sagar sought interim injunctions. The trial court, in its February 2023 order, dismissed Om Prakash’s application but allowed Vidya Sagar’s application, restraining Om Prakash from interfering with the said property and the access road until the case was decided.
Subsequently, alleging that Om Prakash continued to block the access road despite the injunction, Vidya Sagar sought police assistance to enforce the court’s order. Although the trial court refused, later a local commissioner inspected the site and reported that Om Prakash had obstructed the only approach road by placing stones, firewood, iron rods, a water tank, cow dung and a kitchen garden on it.
Vidya Sagar appealed and the court allowed his appeal, directed Om Prakash to remove the obstructions from the link road and granted police assistance to enforce the injunction. Aggrieved by this order, Om Prakash approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court with this revision petition.
Story continues below this ad
‘100 per cent disabled man’
The high court noted that Vidya Sagar has been able to make out a case in his favour and has found that the sale deed was executed by Om Prakash’s mother, and it is placed on record that he is a 100% disabled person, and to have ingress and egress, he purchased the said property after spending more than Rs 3 lakh.
The court noted that if Vidya Sagar is not provided police assistance to enforce the injunction order, in that event, he would suffer “huge and irreparable” loss. It held that the first appellate court had rightly appreciated the point in controversy and was well within its right to direct the present petitioner to remove the obstruction as made by him over the said land.
The high court clarified that the validity of the sale deed and Om Prakash’s challenge under the Nautor Rules would be decided by the trial court after recording evidence, and that the present revision was confined only to the correctness of the appellate court’s order enforcing the interim injunction.
Arguments
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Neel Kamal Sharma argued that the first appellate court has gone astray in the matter, and granted the relief to Vidya Sagar. He submitted that after accepting the present petition, the said judgment as passed by the first appellate court deserves to be set aside.
Story continues below this ad
Senior advocate Neeraj Gupta pointed out that before proceeding in the matter, this court has to take into consideration that his client is a 100 per cent disabled person. He added that Vidya Sagar purchased the land in 2020 to have ingress and egress from Om’s mother, Geetan Devi.
It was further argued that despite the passing of the injunction order by the trial court, the petitioner continued to interfere with the property.
It was submitted that the first appellate court had rightly appreciated the point in controversy, and after relying upon the report of the local commissioner, the first appellate court was well within its right to pass the previous order and to preserve the said property.
Justice Romesh Verma noted that if the 100 per cent would not get the police assistance to enforce the injunction order, he would suffer huge and irreparable loss.