[2025:RJ-JP:4250] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12517/2022 1. Akbar Ali S/o Yusuf Ali, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Ward No. 32, Station Road Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu. 2. Mohd. Yunush S/o Yusuf Ali, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ward No. 32, Station Road Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu. 3. Abdul Vashid S/o Abdul Sakoor, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Batwalo Ka Mohalla Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu. 4. Mohd Ashif Ali S/o Abdul Sakoor, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Batwalo Ka Mohalla Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Jhunjhunu. 2. Land Officer Tehsildar Jhunjhunu, Land Officer Through Tehsildar Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu. 3. Abdul Latif S/o Fateh Mohammed, R/o Batwalo Ki Masjid, Mohalla Batwalan Jhunjhunu. 4. Mohd. Jakir S/o Fateh Mohammed, R/o Batwalo Ki Masjid, Mohalla Batwalan Jhunjhunu. 5. Rustam Ali S/o Fateh Mohammed, R/o Batwalo Ki Masjid, Mohalla Batwalan Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 30/01/2025 1. Petitioners are plaintiffs, who have preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 28.05.2022 passed by the District Judge, Jhunjhunu, dismissing their Civil Misc. Appeal No.19/2021 and affirming the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu, dismissing their application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the private respondents-defendants from raising the construction over the disputed land. [2025:RJ-JP:4250] (2 of 3) [CW-12517/2022] 2. Heard counsel for petitioners and perused the material as also impugned orders available on record. 3. It appears that plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunction in respect of land in question, alleging the same to be land of way. Along with the civil suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed seeking to restrain the respondents-defendants from raising construction over the land in question. 4. Learned trial Court, after considering the prima facie case in light of the respective pleadings of both parties, has observed that in the Revenue Record, the land in question is not shown as way and the plaintiffs miserably failed to prove, prima facie, that the land in question is being used as way. Accordingly, the prayer for temporary injunction was rejected vide order dated 31.03.2021. 5. Against the order dated 31.03.2021, plaintiffs preferred Civil Misc. Appeal, which too was considered on merits and has been dismissed vide order dated 28.05.2022 affirming the view of the trial Court. 6. Counsel for petitioners, during course of arguments submits that though in the current revenue record, the land in question has not been indicated as way but in the previous revenue record, it was shown as dotted line. 7. This Court, having perused the findings of the trial Court so also affirmed by the Appellate Court, finds that this aspect has been taken into consideration by both the Courts and it has been observed that no material has been placed on record to show the existence of way on the site. Apart from the revenue record, trace [2025:RJ-JP:4250] (3 of 3) [CW-12517/2022] map and report of Tehsildar were also taken into consideration. This Court finds that the prima facie case of petitioners has been examined by both the Courts after appreciating the material available on record and the findings recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from any perversity much less jurisdictional error. 8. Apart from that, it may be observed that plaintiffs themselves are claiming injunction in mandatory form to remove the possession of defendants and to get the land in question vacated, to be utilized as way. In that view also, the denial of prayer for temporary injunction from raising the construction, is not unjustified. The view expressed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court is a possible view. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Mehtab Khan Vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim [(2013) 9 SCC 221], has clearly observed that if the view of trial Court on the application for temporary injunction is a possible view, then the Appellate Court or the higher Court should not interfere therein. 10. In that view of the matter, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error nor same leads to miscarriage of justice. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and same is hereby dismissed. 12. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /157