R.S.A.No. 3574 of 2008(O&M) {1}
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
R.S.A.No. 3574 of 2008(O&M)
Date of Decision:August 19, 2009
Balbir Singh
---Appellant
versus
Gram Panchayat Village Jhuggian Ghulam
---Respondent
Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
***
Present: Mr. Naresh Prabhakar,Advocate,
for the appellant
Mrs. J.J.Kaur, Advocate,
for the respondent.
***
SABINA J.
Plaintiff – Balbir Singh had filed a suit for permanent
injunction. Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Kapurthala vide
judgment and decree dated 14.6.2007 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was
dismissed by District Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated
26.4.2008. Hence, the present appeal.
The facts of the case as noticed by the learned trial court in
paras 1 and 2 of its judgment read as under:-
R.S.A.No. 3574 of 2008(O&M) {2}
“It is the case of plaintiff that suit land is recorded as Shamlat
Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat in the revenue record. Family of the
plaintiff has been residing in the village and plaintiff has been
coming in possession of suit land peacefully, for the last more
than 20 years. Defendants have no connection with the suit
land, but they have been giving threats to dispossess plaintiff
from the suit land, forcibly and illegally. Defendants came to
the spot on 10.8.1999 and tried to take possession of the suit
land by ploughing the fields with a tractor.
2. Notice of the suit was given to defendant. Defendant No.
1 dhas contested the suit and filed written statement taking
preliminary objections that suit is not maintainable in the
present form; plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit; this
court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.
The property of Gram Panchayat is under illegal and Zabaran
Kabaz and law does not recognize such possession. On merits,
it is admitted that suit land is recorded as shamlat Deh Hasab
Rasad Khewat. It is denied that plaintiff is in possession of the
suit land for the last 20 years. It is further stated that land in
dispute is under management and control of Gram Panchayat,
which has been leasing out the same through public auction.
Some portion of the suit land is given on lease through public
auction to defendant No. 2. Other averments have been
denied.”
On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following
issues:-
R.S.A.No. 3574 of 2008(O&M) {3}
“(1)Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and
entitled for injunction as prayed for ? OPP
(2)Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the
present suit? OPD
(3)Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?
OPD
(4)Relief
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the
opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction that the
defendants be restrained form interfering in his peaceful possession. The
suit land is described as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasab Khewat.
Admittedly, as per the revenue record, plaintiff is in unlawful
possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 14//19 min(1-0), 21/1(1-7), 22
(-16), 15//14/2(2-18). However, with regard to the said khasra numbers, an
ejectment order has already been passed against the plaintiff by the
Collector, Kapurthala vide Ex. D-2 dated 28.3.1995. Plaintiff was also
burdened with penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and was directed to pay arrears of
Chakota amount to Rs. 24,000/-. In these circumstances, courts below have
rightly held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of permanent
injunction and the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff did not advance
his case.
No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
August 19, 2009
PARAMJIT