Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 713 (PNJ)

Sat Pal v. Gram Panchayat

2000-07-12

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 10.2.1999 passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge, Ambala, who reversed the order dated 28.7.1998 passed by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), who partly allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, and granted status quo. 2. The case set up by the plaintiff is that he was in possession of the property on the date of the filing of the suit the Gram Panchayat was not in possession of the property. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) vide order dated 28.7.1998 granted status quo order by adopting the reason that both the parties are disputing the possession. The Gram Panchayat was not satisfied with the order of the trial court and it filed an appeal under Order 43, CPC, and the same was allowed for the reasons given in para-7 of the order dated 10.2.1999, which read as under :- "It has been contended by ld. counsel for appellant that the ld. trial court has wrongly passed an order of status quo because the Gram Panchayat was completely in possession of the disputed property and was leasing the same to various persons by way of auction. While perusing various documents on record, it is found that the Gram Panchayat is owner of the disputed property. Mutation No. 1024 does not show the possession of plaintiff on any piece of land. There is no document in favour of the plaintiff, at this stage of the case. There is an affidavit dated 25.3.82 on the file, which shows that Sat Pal plaintiff who was earlier in possession of some land out of Khasra No. 20//18, 19 min relinquished the same in favour of Gram Panchayat. This affidavit, at this stage of the case, cannot be said to be a false document. The affidavit has not been prepared just now. It is an old document brought on record. The plaintiff in his plaint, nowhere mentioned that he earlier was in illegal possession of some portion of the property of Gram Panchayat, and which portion was later on relinquished by him and for which, an affidavit was given by him too. A party, who has come for equity and asks for a discretionary relief, should not conceal true facts from the court. A party, who has come for equity and asks for a discretionary relief, should not conceal true facts from the court. Hence, plaintiff cannot be allowed the relief of stay, as prayed for. Moreover, the plaintiff has not been found to be in possession of the suit land, in any way, and so he is not entitled for the relief of status quo at least. A reference made to a notice issued by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ambala, to Sat Pal to the effect that he was in possession of 10 kanals of land belonging to Gram Panchayat, is of no consequence, in the light of above discussion. The revenue documents on record do no support the case of plaintiff, at all. The Gram Panchayat has auctioned the land after giving due notice as per law and after seeking permission from the concerned authorities. A copy of the notice has been placed on record, in this regard. The Gram Panchayat further placed on file some of the documents to show that the suit land was auctioned for the year 1998-99 in favour of Ram Kumar on payment of Rs. 1300/-. If the Gram Panchayat was not in possession, there was no fun to auction the land to some body. Moreover, no person would come forward and make the payment unless he is delivered possession of the land. From all this, it is quite clear that the plaintiff is not in possession of the disputed property. No relief of stay or status quo can, therefore, be allowed to him. The ld. counsel for appellant has relied upon 1997(1) Civil Court Cases 90 Sri Hanumanthappa v. Maninarayanappa, 1997(1) Civil Court Cases 201 Gurcharan Singh v. Distt. Chief Agricultural Officer, Jalandhar, 1977(1) PLJ 577 Ujjagar Singh v. Gram Panchayat, Majhi, and 1997(2) PLJ 86 Ruldu Singh (dead) through LRs. v. Nagar Panchayat of Village Umarpura, in support of his viewpoint that the status quo order passed by the Id. trial court deserves to be set aside." Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate court, the present revision. 3. v. Nagar Panchayat of Village Umarpura, in support of his viewpoint that the status quo order passed by the Id. trial court deserves to be set aside." Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate court, the present revision. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that possession is with the petitioner and, in these circumstances, the order of the trial court is legally justified and there was no perversity on the part of the trial court in passing the order dated 28.7.1998 and, therefore, the first appellate court should have been slow to reverse the same. 4. I am not in a position to subscribe to the argument of the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to show that on the date of the institution of the suit, he was in established possession. It is the case of the petitioner himself that the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat. The discussion of the first appellate court in this respect is that the petitioner was never in possession of the suit land on the date of institution of the suit. Rather, this land was being auctioned by the Gram Panchayat and for the year 1998-99, it was so auctioned in favour of Ram Kumar on payment of Rs. 1300/- and the possession was delivered. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that on the date of institution of the suit, the petitioner was in established possession. He has no, prima facie, case to succeed and I do not see any illegality in the impugned order of the first appellate court. No merit. Dismissed. Revision dismissed.