Interim restoration of possession

Accused persons were aggrieved of order passed by Trial Court directing them to handover possession of property in question to complainant

Validity

Application under S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, could be allowed during trial when Court was satisfied that accused was found prima facie to be not in lawful possession

In such situation owner or occupier, as the case might be, could be put into possession by a direction to the person who was not found in lawful possession

Trial Court did not mention anywhere that it was satisfied and prima facie felt that accused was dispossessed from the property in question

Sufficient material was not available with Trial Court which could justify allowing the application filed under S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which was allowed through order in question

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by Trial Court

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Complainant was aggrieved of order passed by Trial Court refusing restoration of possession as interim measures during proceedings of complaint

Validity

Provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, were promulgated to curb dispossession from immovable property, if made by a certain class of persons who were part of "land mafia"

Where contractual issues were involved, matter of possession/dispossession would come within the ambit of Civil Court

Report of revenue authorities regarding possession with respondents was reconfirmed by a legal notice issued by complainant's counsel

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Trial Court as there was no illegality or impropriety with the same

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.