Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3457 (PNJ)

Gaurdev Singh v. Gram Panchayat Of Village Pabala

2006-09-07

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2006
Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 8-06-2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which the appeal filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 herein against the order dated 27-04-2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Kaithal, granting ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioners, was allowed and the application moved by the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. 2. The suit was filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC on the allegation that the suit land detailed in para 1 of the plaint was under the ownership of the plaintiffs-petitioner being proprietors/Biswedars of village and, therefore, they had got every right in the suit land. It was also pleaded that they had got share in the suit land being Jumla Malkan Bah Hakrast-Rakba and they had the interest in the suit land. 3. As the proprietors are numerous in number, the suit was filed in representative capacity. 4. The case set up was that the suit land was mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat, Pabala, vide mutation No. 317 which was sanctioned on 4- 07- 1992 by virtue of Act No. 9 of 1992, but the said Act was struck down by this Court in the case titled as Jai Singh v. State of Haryana (2003-2) PLR 658 and it was held by this Court vide order dated 13-3-2003 that the land which was reserved for common purposes shall vest in the Gram Panchayat, whereas the remaining land would vest in the proprietors of the village. In view of the said judgment, the plaintiff-petitioners applied to the competent authority for sanctioning the mutation which was done on 24-10- 2005. The mutation was sanctioned in favour of Jumla Malkan Bahad Hakdaran Hasab Rasad Rakba. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that the suit land was never reserved for common purposes and accordingly the proprietors including the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the same and thus mutation No. 425 in favour of Gram Panchayat had no concern with the suit land. 5. It was further pleaded that now the defendant-respondents in collusion with the District Administration threatened the plaintiffs and other proprietors of the village by putting the suit land for auction for cultivation purposes. 5. It was further pleaded that now the defendant-respondents in collusion with the District Administration threatened the plaintiffs and other proprietors of the village by putting the suit land for auction for cultivation purposes. Along with the suit an application for temporary injunction was made. 6. The learned trial Court on a consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that the mutation placed on record shows the land in dispute to be Jumla Malkan Bahad Hakdaran Hasab Rasad Rakba and, therefore, the plaintiffs had a prima facie case in their favour. It was also noticed that the mutation was sanctioned in the presence of the defendant respondents and, therefore, it was not open to them to take a plea that they were not aware of the latest mutation and thus the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff-petitioners and that they would suffer an irreparable loss in case temporary injunction was not granted. 7. On appeal, the learned Appellate Court came to the conclusion that in the jamabandi for year 1957-58, Gram Panchayat was shown to be in possession of the suit land and further came to the conclusion that part of the suit land was Banjar Kadim, gair mumkin rasta, gair mumkin Nahar and gair mumkin charan. It also came to the conclusion that the land was used for public purposes and the ownership of the suit land was shown to be that of the Gram Panchayat. It was observed by the learned lower Appellate Court that the Revenue Authorities sanctioned mutation No. 425 in favour of Jumla Malkan Bah Haktrast Rakba on 9-02-2006 and the land which was actually in the name of the Gram Panchayat was mutated in favour of Jumla Malkan Bah Hakrast Rakba. It was also noticed that in the jamabandi for the year 2000-01, the suit land was shown in the ownership of Gram Panchayat and it was shown in possession thereof. It was also noticed that as per jamabandi for the year 2000-01, the nature of the suit land was shown as Gora Deh, Gadha, gair mumkin rasta, Panchayat Ghar, Gadha Bachgaon i.e. burial place of village children and in the remaining land, the lessees were shown in cultivating possession under the Gram Panchayat. It was also noticed that as per jamabandi for the year 2000-01, the nature of the suit land was shown as Gora Deh, Gadha, gair mumkin rasta, Panchayat Ghar, Gadha Bachgaon i.e. burial place of village children and in the remaining land, the lessees were shown in cultivating possession under the Gram Panchayat. The learned lower Appellate Court further came to the conclusion that substantial portion of the suit land was reserved for common purposes and the same would vest in the Gram Panchayat and by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Jai Singhs case (supra), it came to the conclusion that the order passed by the trial Court was not sustainable. 8. The learned lower Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that no irreparable loss or injury was going to be caused to the plaintiff applicants if injunction was not granted in their favour as they were not in possession over the suit property. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the trial Court was reversed. 9. Mr. Sarjit Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the order passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is an outcome of misreading of the documents placed on record. The learned Senior Counsel referred to the jamabandi for the year 1957-58 wherein the land in dispute was shown to be Jumla Malkan Bahad Hakdaran Hasab Rasad Rakba and, therefore, was not in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat as held by the learned Additional District Judge in the impugned judgment. 10. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the plaintiffs-petitioner never raised any claim on the land shown as Banjar Kadim gair mumkin, rasta, gair mumkin nahar, gair mumkin charan, but they were only concerned with the land in their possession which they were cultivating as proprietors of the village. It is clear from the facts mentioned above that the ownership of the Gram Panchayat was shown in view of Act No. 9 of 1992 which was struck down by this Court and in consequence thereof the mutation was sanctioned in favour of the proprietors of the village and the mutation was sanctioned in favour of Jumla Malkan Bahad Hakdaran Hasab Rasad Rakba. Even in the jamabandi for the year 1957-58, the land was not shown to be in the ownership of Gram Panchayat, but was shown as Jumla Malkan Bahad Hakdaran Hasab Rasad Rakba. Thus the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is based on misreading of the documents placed on record. The plaintiffs-petitioner have the interest in the land which is in their possession as proprietors of the village and, therefore, the learned trial Court was right in holding that the plaintiffs had a prima facie case in their favour and that the balance of convenience was also in their favour. It was rightly held by the learned trial Court that the plaintiffs were to suffer irreparable loss in case injunction was denied to them. 11. For the reasons stated above, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is set aside and that of the learned trial Court is restored with no order as to costs.