Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 701 (PNJ)

Ram Sarup v. Gram Panchayat

2000-07-11

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 18.3.1999 passed by Addl. District Judge, Jhajjar, who dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff under Order 43 C.P.C. by affirming the order dated 7.1.1999 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jhajjar, who dismissed the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction during the pendency of suit. 2. The pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner :- The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction that defendant Gram Panchayat, Dawla be retrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property marked with the letters IJKL as he is the owner of the site in dispute. The site is his ancestral property and he has raised construction on it. The site is being used for tethering cattle since the time of his forefathers and the plaintiff is also using the same for placing cowdung cakes etc. The defendant Gram Panchayat has no right, title or interest in the said site. On the eastern side of the site in dispute there is Plot No. 119, which, in fact, belongs to the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat has started the construction of school on plot No. 119, but it wants to encroach the site in dispute which is the ownership of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit was filed. Along with the suit the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. vide which it was prayed that the defendant be restrained from interfering in his possession over the suit property during the pendency of the suit. 3. The suit as well as the application was contested by the defendant and it was stated that the site in dispute belongs to the Gram Panchayat, that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and that the suit is not legally maintainable. 4. The parties placed documents before the trial Court and after careful consideration of the matter, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhajjar vide order dated 7.1.1999 dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed the appeal before the Court of Addl. 4. The parties placed documents before the trial Court and after careful consideration of the matter, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhajjar vide order dated 7.1.1999 dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed the appeal before the Court of Addl. District Judge, Jhajjar, who again dismissed the appeal for the reasons given in paras No. 9 to 13 of the impugned order, which read as under :- "9. Firstly coming to the map which has been relied upon by the plaintiff and was attached with the plaint, wherein the boundary of this plot has been shown to be 136 feet, whereas in the site plan prepared by the Local Commissioner after inspecting the spot it was found to be only 120 feet. This, therefore, clearly shows that the map prepared by the plaintiff is not correct. Secondly, the disputed property marked with the letters IJKL is a part of the strip between the street and Khasra No. 119 which belonged to Gram Panchayat and this strip is to be taken to be a property of Gram Panchayat, in view of the definition of shamlat deh as defined in section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961, as the disputed land is a vacant land within the abadi deh of the village. Though in the report of the Local Commissioner dated 3.6.1997 it has been mentioned that khor is there in the disputed land and also cow-dung cakes which belong to the plaintiff but only this much is not enough to show the plaintiffs possession or ownership over the plot in dispute. The plot being a vacant plot and putting cow-dung cakes is not a piece of evidence to show ones possession over it. 10. In addition to what has been discussed above, the defendants counsel has placed on record a photocopy of the proposed site plan for the construction of the Girls High School in village Bawla. A perusal of this proposed site plan which has been sanctioned by the State Government clearly reveals that the total area given to the Girls High School was measuring 136 feet x 220 feet. A perusal of this proposed site plan which has been sanctioned by the State Government clearly reveals that the total area given to the Girls High School was measuring 136 feet x 220 feet. If this proposed site plan is compared with the rough site plan prepared by the Local Commissioner, it clearly reveals that the disputed land marked with the letters IJKL in the rough site plan prepared by the Local Commissioner comes within the area of this proposed site plan and is for the construction of the Girls High School and thus again the plaintiff cannot be said to be the owner of this land. 11. One other material fact is also there that this disputed plot is quite adjacent to the plot No. 119, which belongs to Gram Panchayat. The plaintiffs house is situated at a distance and not quite adjacent to this plot and as such the plot in dispute cannot be said to be a part and parcel of the plaintiffs house. 12. Again since in view of the definition of the shamlat deh as defined in section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961, the suit property is to be taken to be a part of Gram Panchayat property and the plaintiff has claimed his ownership as well as title over this property, therefore, there arises a question of vesting or non-vesting of the suit property in the Gram Panchayat and where a question of vesting or non-vesting in the Gram Panchayat arises, the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961. 13. In these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the plaintiff does not have any prima facie case in his favour, nor the balance of convenience and for the same reasons, no question of irreparable loss or injury to the plaintiff if the injunction is refused to him, as rightly observed by the learned Lower Court." 6. I have heard Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 7. I have heard Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner with the assistance of the report of Local Commissioner wanted to show that plaintiff has raised a Khor on the site in dispute. Some bricks of the plaintiff are lying there and he is using the site in question for domestic purpose. The possession of the plaintiff has been established prima facie and, therefore, he is entitled to the injunction as prayed for. Mr. Goel submitted that at least the parties should be directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession till the disposal of the suit. 8. On the contrary, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Jain that the site in dispute is situated within the abadi of the village and as per the provisions of Section 4(a) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana, all sites vest in the Gram Panchayat after the amendment and, therefore, the plaintiff has not been able to show prima facie that he is the owner of the property in question and his possession is simply of a trespasser and in these circumstances he is not entitled to the relief against the real owner. Mr. Jain submitted that the site in question is of the Gram Panchayat which has been given to the school and construction has been started on it. 9. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has not been able to prove prima facie his title with regard to the site in question. The case set up by the plaintiff before the trial Court was that the site in question is his ownership since the time immemorial and he is using the same as owner. The location of the site would show that this is not adjacent to the house of the plaintiff. Rather the house of the plaintiff is at some distance. The site in question vests in the Gram Panchayat. The location of the site would show that this is not adjacent to the house of the plaintiff. Rather the house of the plaintiff is at some distance. The site in question vests in the Gram Panchayat. In these circumstances, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit of the type filed by the plaintiff by virtue of provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the defendant, who are likely to suffer irreparable mischief even if a status quo order is issued in favour of the plaintiff. 10. Resultantly, there is no merit in this revision which is hereby dismissed. Nothing stated above shall amount an expression of my opinion on the merits of the case. Revision dismissed.