1. ' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---Learned Advocate-General has very candidly placed the respective position taken up by the parties with respect to ownership of the land in question. Apparently the respondent No,2 have claimed ownership of the property and have stated that it was leased out to one Ram Krishna Mission under a, temporary lease dated 9-2-1994 and vide a resolution of the respondent No,2, dated 2-2-1998 - the aforesaid respondent has already approved the exception
(sic) of removal of a lease in favour of the petitioner. Nevertheless the lease deed has not been executed so far because of Government approval of the resolution is still awaited. On the other hand the respondent No,1 have asserted that the land in question did not vest in the respondent No,2 but was Government Land under Article 172 of the Constitution. No entries from Revenue Record, however, have been produced and it is contended that the land in question was unserved.
2. Be that as it may, it appears that there is a dispute relating to title of land which cannot appropriately be resolved in these proceedings. The fact nevertheless regained that the mere existence of a dispute as to ownership or even a claim as to title does not authorise the respondents Nos.3 and 4 to take forcible possession of the premises. In the circumstances we would allow this petition and declare the questioned acts of the respondents Nos.3 and 4 to be without lawful authority and of no legal affect. They are restrained from taking any action against the petitioner and respondent No,5 except in accordance with law and they are informed that in case they proceed to take the law into their own hands they might be personally liable for repercussions. The petition stands disposed of in the above term. The rent deposited in Court by the respondent No,5 may be withdrawn by the petitioner. The parties are at liberty to move the appropriate Courts for vindication of their claims to title and this order will not affect any relief granted by the proper Court.