JUDGMENT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. By this common judgment two Civil Revisions bearing Nos. 2766 and 3106 of 1997 can conveniently be disposed of together as the same are directed against the common judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated 5.3.1997.
2. The relevant facts are that M/s Dharampal Mohinder Nath through its proprietor Sansar Chand Menon has filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the Gram Panchayat from interfering in his possession in the land measuring 40 kanals 10 marlas on the allegation that the he had taken the land in dispute on lease for the purpose of manufacturing bricks at the rate of Rs. 500/- per kanal for digging earth and Rs. 2,500/- per year as Chakota Fee. Petitioner’s case further was that he has regularly been making payment of Chakota and the amount of digging the earth to the Gram Panchayat and he is in possession of the land even before the lease was executed.
3. The application as well as the suit was contested by the Gram Panchayat on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It was asserted further that the B.D. and P.O. was not competent to auction the land of the Gram Panchayat for more than three years and in any case the transaction is to be approved by the Director. Plea was raised that the petitioner has fabricated the document. Gram Panchayat auctioned the land through a resolution dated 24.7.1991. In the resolution, no Khasra No. of the land has been given. Even in the Jamabandi for the year 1993-94, Nirmal Singh and Amolak Singh have been shown in possession. Same is the position in Khasra Girdwari for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96. Gram Panchayat disputed the letter dated 18.6.1994 in which Khasra No. of the land had been given and contended that it was a forged letter.
4. Petitioner filed yet another suit against Nirmal Singh. The facts alleged in that suit were identical. The said suit has also been contested.
5. The learned trial Court held that, prima facie, petitioner could not be in possession. There was no proper lease that has been granted and accordingly there was no prima facie case in favour of petitioner. Ad interim injunction was refused. The appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petitions have been filed.
6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner took pains to point out that the entire lease money and Chakota money has been paid and on this ground the Courts below were in error in rejecting the application. But after hearing the parties’ counsel, it is obvious that this is not the sole ground as such. Certain facts which cannot be ignored are on the record which prompt one to hold that the order passed requires no interference.
7. It is on the record that the B.D and P.O. had granted the lease. He was not competent to auction the land of the Gram Panchayat. The auction requires the confirmation of the Director. Permission of the Director had not been taken. What is important is that auction was cancelled in the year 1993. The petitioner was aware of it but he did not make any attempt to challenge the order cancelling the auction. In that view of the matter, petitioner cannot claim his right to be in possession of the land subject to what is to be recorded hereinafter.
8. In the alleged lease, no Khasra No. had been mentioned. In this process, it is not certain as to which piece of land had to be given to the petitioner. Once the lease does not mention the Khasra No. it must be taken to be a void contract being uncertain. Reliance is placed on the letter of 18.6.1994 purported to have been written by the Gram Panchayat to indicate that Khasra Nos. have been mentioned. That is not going to help the petitioner as the respondent Gram Panchayat does not accept the same and has asserted that it is a forged letter. Otherwise also, there was no occasion in writing such a letter afterwards. Prime facie the contention of the respondents must prevail that without Khasra No. there could not been a valid lease.
9. Even the petitioner has not been recorded to be in possession in jamabandi for the year 1993-94 and Khasra Girdawari for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96. Gram Panchayat is recorded as the owner of the land and possession is not of the petitioner. Thus, he cannot allege that he is in possession and could not be dispossessed except in due course of law. The totality of facts make one agree with the findings of the Courts below that no prima facie case was made out. It is not a fit case for interference by this Court.
10. The revision petitions being without merit must fail and are dismissed.