JUDGMENT
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Petition Nos. 5713, 5709, 5747 and 5748 of 2004 as common questions of law and facts have arisen in all these petitions. Facts are being referred from C.R. No. 5713 of 2004 which challenges order dated 2.9.2004 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hissar and the order dated 19.10.2004 passed by Learned Additional District Judge, Hissar. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) has declined the application of the plaintiff-petitioners for issuance of interim directions to the respondent-Gram Panchayat for restraining them to take possession of the suit land in pursuance to the warrant of possession issued by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Hansi. The warrant of possession has been issued on an application under Section 7(1)(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) which has been filed by respondent-Gram Panchayat. The order passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Hisar, has been upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, by his order dated 19.10.2004.
2. Both the Courts below after detailed consideration have recorded a finding that nothing has been brought on record by the plaintiff-petitioners showing that they were owner in possession of the suit property. It has further been held that long unauthorised continuous possession of the land belonging to Gram, Panchayat cannot give any right of ownership to the petitioners, nor any injunction order could be granted to them. Both the courts have also dealt with the maintainability of the application under Section 7(1) of the Act before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Hansi and other objections. A reference has also been made to an order dated 24.4.1990 Annexure P-1 which has been passed on an application under Section 7(2)(1) of the Act showing that then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat suffered a statement before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hansi by stating that the Gram Panchayat had taken double of the land from the petitioner on lieu of the suit land and he did not want to proceed with the application filed before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. I find that the view taken by both the Courts below does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The learned counsel has not been able to substantiate the fact that two times the land has been given by the plaintiff-petitioner in lieu of the suit land belonging to the Gram Panchayat as has been envisaged by order dated 24.4.1980 (Annexure P-1). It is appropriate to mention that the afore-mentioned order was passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hansi when the then Sarpanch had suffered the following statement:
“Counsel for the parties are present. Sarpanch Panchayat is present. Sarpanch has stated that the petitioner Gram Panchayat has taken double of the land from the respondent in lieu of the land in dispute. Now he does not want to proceed with the case. Therefore, no further proceedings are required in view of the statement of the Sarpanch Panchayat. File is consigned to the record room.”
4. In the absence of any authenticity that two times the land of the Gram Panchayat in lieu of the suit land has been surrendered by the plaintiff-petitioner no sanctity could be attached to the order Annexure P-1.
5. I am further of the view that no manifest injustice has been caused to the petitioner nor he has suffered any harassment at the hands of respondents. On the contrary the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat appears to have been encroached upon. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 could only be exercised when there is failure of justice and rectification thereof by interference of this Court is imperative. The aforementioned principles have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Ouseph Mathus v. M. Abdul Khadir, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 110:2002(1) S.C.C. 319. It is not permissible for this Court to interfere in every wrong and illegal order. In the case of Virendra Kashinath Ravat and Anr. v. Vinayak N. Joshi and Ors., A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 162:1999(1) S.C.C. 47 the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether High Court was competent to interfere to reverse a finding of fact merely on the ground of insufficiency of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 5 of the Code. Holding that superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should not be extended to such like omission, their Lordship observed as under:-
“It was the case of the appellants that during the pendency of the suit the first respondent and his sister (second respondent) were unlawfully inducted into possession of the building. So the appellants moved an application for amendment of the plaint and the same was granted by the trial Court. In the plaint so amended para 5-A was inserted, the material portion of which reads thus:
“The plaintiffs say that pending the suit the defendants have or any of them has inducted in the suit premises Defendants 1 and 5 unlawfully.”
Learned Singled Judge treated the aforesaid pleadings as insufficient to make out a case for subletting. This was not a point considered by or even raised before the two fact-finding forums. Order 6 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) confers powers on the court to order a party to make a further statement or even a better statement or further and better particulars of any matter already mentioned in the pleading. This is incorporated in the Code to indicate that no suit shall be dismissed merely on the ground that more particulars are not stated in the pleadings. If the contesting respondents, or any of them, had raised objection that the pleadings was scanty, perhaps the appellants would have further elaborated it as provided in Rule 5 above. At any rate this should not have been a premise on which interference by the High Court should have been made in exercising a jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution.”
Therefore, there is no merit in this petition.
For the reasons stated above, all these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.