HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3464 of 2019 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vimlesh Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 as well as Sri S.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no.3. 2. Plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit seeking relief for permanent injunction against the respondent-State which was registered as Original Suit No.121 of 2012. In the said suit, an application for grant of temporary injunction was moved which was rejected by the trial Court, against which, a misc. civil appeal was filed which was also rejected. 3. The matter came up before this Court and the matter was remanded back for deciding the appeal again. Post remand, the appellate Court had dismissed the misc. civil appeal filed by petitioner, hence the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the name of his father was recorded over Plots No.163 and 182, over which, he is in possession. According to him, Plots No.183 and 184 have been acquired and not Plots No.163 and 182. Both the Courts below had wrongly rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction. 5. Sri Vimlesh Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for Nagar Palika Parishad submits that photocopy of Khatauni for Fasli Year 1362-1368 was filed which was not accepted by the Court, and findings were Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Mohan Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anand Kumar Pandey, C.S.C., Girdhar Prasad Tripathi, Pranjal Mehrotra, Satendra Pratap Singh, Vimlesh Kumar Rai Shiv Ji .....Petitioner(s) Nagar Palika Parishad Ballia And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) returned to the effect that photocopy was filed and name of the father existed 60 years back and present revenue record does not reflect the name of either father or petitioner. According to him, land numbered as 183 and 184 was already acquired way back in the year 1956. 6. Sri S.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing has submitted that the suit is only for permanent injunction and no declaration has been sought. The entire pleadings reflect that case is totally based on the possession of plaintiff-petitioner. 7. I have heard counsel for parties and perused the material on record. 8. It is an admitted fact that the suit has been filed seeking relief for permanent injunction against respondent-State. No relief for declaration has been sought by plaintiff. 9. From reading of plaint, it appears that entire case of plaintiff-petitioner rests upon the possession over land in dispute. Once, there is no relief for declaration and the findings have been returned by both the Courts below that Arazi No.183 and 184 was acquired by the Government in the year 1956 and there is no document to demonstrate ownership in respect of Khasra No.163 and 182, both the Courts below have rightly refused to grant temporary injunction. The first principle granting temporary injunction is to see as to whether the plaintiff has claimed the ownership along with possession over the property in dispute. 10. In the instant case, only relief for permanent injunction has been sought on the strength of possession over the property for the last 60 years. 11. No interference is required by this Court in the order impugned. 12. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. September 23, 2026 SK Goswami A227 No. 3464 of 2019 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad