Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 548 (PNJ)

Labh Singh v. Gram Panchayat

2005-05-02

M.M.KUMAR

body2005
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging order dated 8.4.2005 passed by the Id. District Judge, Sangrur upholding the view taken by the Id. Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sangrur in his order dated 14.6.2004. Both the Courts below have dismissed the application of the plaintiff-petitioner filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in which prayer was made to restrain the defendant-respondent from interfering in his peaceful possession. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering in his peaceful possession or dispossessing him from the land described in the head note of the plaint. It was further claimed that defendant-respondent Gram Panchayat has no concern with the suit land and that the plaintiff-petitioner is khewatdar/proprietor of the village as the land described in the revenue record is Jumla Mushatarka Malkan Ba Deegar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat. Along with the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was filed which has been dismissed. Both the Courts below have found that the land has been given on lease by the defendant-respondent in the years 1994, 1995 and 1997 to one Hazura Singh. In the years 2000 and 2001 the land was leased out to the brother of the plaintiff-petitioner Gulab Singh. The land was further leased to one Gurdarshan Singh in the year 2003 and again to Gulab Singh, brother of the plaintiff-petitioner in the year 2004. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has argued that once the land is shown to be Jumla Mushatarka Malkan Ba Deegar Haqdaran Hasab Resad Raqba Khewat then it has to be presumed that the owners of the land are proprietor of the village and not the defendant-respondent. According to the learned counsel the plaintiff-petitioner is in possession as has been admitted by the defendant-respondent Gram Panchayat in an application filed before the District Development and Panchayat Officer under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for brevity the Act) wherein it is alleged that the plaintiff-petitioner is in possession of the land for the last about one year. The afore-mentioned application has been filed on 31.3.2005. The afore-mentioned application has been filed on 31.3.2005. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Kashmir Singh v. Gram Panchayat Village Dhidowal, 2002(3) L.J.R. 85. 4. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the orders passed by both the Courts below, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Both the Courts below have found that the entry in the revenue record showing that the proprietors are in cultivating possession of the suit land stood explained by the defendant-respondent as it has successfully been proved prima facie that the land in dispute had been leased out by defendant-respondent to various persons. It is well settled that even in respect of land belonging to the proprietary body, defendant-respondent would be entitled to its management. The question of possession is a question of fact as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. Nihal Singh, and it would not give rise to any question of law which may warrant admission of the instant petition. 5. The argument that the owner of the land is shown by the revenue record as Jumla Mushatarka Malkan Ba Deegar Haqdran Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat has failed to impress me because those entries have been amply explained by the defendant-respondent Gram Panchayat that the land in dispute has been given on lease to various persons from 1994. A presumption which is raised in favour of the correctness of the revenue record under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 has been replaced by defendant-respondent prima facie proving on record that it is in possession. It has been shown that the land has been given on lease to various persons from the year 1994 to 2004 which includes the brother of the plaintiff-petitioner. Therefore, there is no substance in the afore-mentioned argument. 6. The other argument that the defendant-respondent has admitted the possession of the plaintiff-petitioner in the ejectment petition filed under Section 7 of the Act has also not impressed me because the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit on 1.6.2004 when the trial Court granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction staying dispossession of the plaintiff-petitioner. Therefore, there is no substance in the afore-mentioned argument. 6. The other argument that the defendant-respondent has admitted the possession of the plaintiff-petitioner in the ejectment petition filed under Section 7 of the Act has also not impressed me because the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit on 1.6.2004 when the trial Court granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction staying dispossession of the plaintiff-petitioner. It appears that on the basis of the afore-mentioned order the plaintiff-petitioner had entered possession illegally and wishes to continue with the same. That situation has led to the filing of the ejectment petition under Section 7 of the Act. Such an act would not lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff-petitioner was in possession being the khewatdar or the proprietor of the village. Therefore, there is no substance in this argument also and the same is rejected. 7. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.