Violation of non-transferability conditions in government land allotments and suppression of material facts preclude temporary injunction.

The petitioners, claiming as successors to Gulab Nat, challenged the cancellation of a land allotment (patta) granted in 2002.

The Collector cancelled the allotment in 2025 on the grounds that the land was sold without requisite permission, a decision later upheld by the Additional Commissioner.

The petitioners filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction, along with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.

The State contested the application, arguing the land was communal grazing land (Gochar), the original allotment was jurisdictionally flawed (issued by a Tehsildar instead of a Collector), and the petitioners had suppressed the sale of multiple land parcels.

Both lower courts rejected the temporary injunction.

1. Whether the lower courts committed an error of law or fact in rejecting the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.

2. Whether the petitioners established a prima facie case for protection of possession despite the alleged violation of patta conditions and suppression of material facts.

The court's decision was governed by the procedural requirements for temporary injunctions under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which require the concurrent proof of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

MP Krishi Prayojan Ke Liye Upayog Ki Ja Rahi Dakhal Rahit Bhumi Par Bhumiswami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana Vishesh Upabandh Adhiniyam, 1984, regarding the non-transferability of land allotted to landless persons.

Revenue Book Circular, Part IV, Chapter 3, Clause 23(2), regarding the jurisdictional authority to grant allotments near municipal limits.

The court noted that the land was expressly non-transferable under the terms of the patta, yet the petitioners had executed three sale deeds without the Collector's permission.

Crucially, the petitioners only disclosed one of these sales, which the court deemed a deliberate suppression of material facts that disqualified them from receiving equitable relief.

Furthermore, since the land was within 1.5 km of the Municipal Council limits, the Court observed that only the Collector—not the Tehsildar—had the authority to issue the allotment, rendering the original patta prima facie illegal.

Finally, because the land had been sold to third parties without evidence of partition, the petitioners could not conclusively prove they remained in possession of the entire suit property.

The High Court affirmed the lower court orders and dismissed the petition. However, on humanitarian grounds related to the current rainy season, the Court directed that the petitioners should not be dispossessed for a period of three months from the date of the order.