Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1035 (PNJ)

Singh Ram v. Gram Panchayat, Village Sitawali

2012-08-02

M.JEYAPAUL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: - CM No. 11515-C of 2011: 1. The sole appellant-plaintiff has died. The application is filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead his legal representatives. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The application is allowed. Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the memorandum of parties. RSA No. 3999 of 2011: 4. The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased Hoshiar Singh. Plaintiff Hoshiar Singh (since deceased) filed a suit for declaration that the order of the Assistant Collector I Grade dated 31.8.2001, order dated 31.3.2003 of the Collector, Sonepat, and order dated 24.11.2004 of the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, are illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction, and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the plot in dispute. 5. The case of the plaintiff is that he has been in possession of plot No. 247 measuring 217 sq. yards, marked in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint. The suit property is situate in the abadi Deh of village Sitawali. Plaintiff also has been in possession of the plot in dispute for the last 50-60 years, having included it in his own plot situated in the western and southern plot in dispute. Ist defendant filed an application before the Assistant Collector I Grade, Ganaur, invoking the provisions under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking ejectment of the plaintiff from the plot in dispute, alleging that the said plot in dispute is owned by the Gram Panchayat. Plaintiff contested the above proceedings before the Assistant Collector denying the title of the Gram Panchayat with respect to the plot in dispute but the Assistant Collector having heard the matter, ordered ejectment of the plaintiff from the plot in dispute. Plaintiff took up the matter in an appeal before the Collector, Sonepat, who chose to dismiss the appeal. Plaintiff also availed the remedy of filing a petition before the Revisional Authority, namely, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, who also dismissed the revision petition vide his order dated 24.11.2004. 6. Plaintiff took up the matter in an appeal before the Collector, Sonepat, who chose to dismiss the appeal. Plaintiff also availed the remedy of filing a petition before the Revisional Authority, namely, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, who also dismissed the revision petition vide his order dated 24.11.2004. 6. Plaintiff has contended in the plaint that the order passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, is illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction as the asbadi Deh land has been specifically and explicitly excluded from the definition of “Shamlat Deh” as defined in Section 2(g)(iv) of the Act. It was not pleaded by the defendant that the well which was the subject matter of dispute was a drinking well which falls under the definition of “Shamlat Deh”. The well was never used for drawing water for drinking purposes. Therefore, it was contended by the plaintiff that he is entitled to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as sought for. 7. Ist defendant remained ex-parte. 2nd defendant contended in his written statement that the plaintiff was not the owner in possession of the plot in dispute. It was only the Gram Panchayat, (2nd defendant herein) which was the owner of the plot in dispute. It was allotted to it in the partition proceedings in the village. The possession of the plaintiff over the plot in dispute is illegal as he has no right to continue in its possession. Plaintiff has not got the plot in dispute from the Gram Panchayat under lease or under any other arrangement. He was simply an encroacher of the plot in dispute. 8. Both the Courts below chose to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff. Hence, this appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the well which is admittedly situated in the disputed plot was never used for drawing water by the villagers. In other words, it was never used for common purpose inasmuch as the defendants have not established that the plot in dispute was Shamlat deh. The Revenue Authorities did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings initiated by the 1st defendant under Section 7 of the Act. In other words, it was never used for common purpose inasmuch as the defendants have not established that the plot in dispute was Shamlat deh. The Revenue Authorities did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings initiated by the 1st defendant under Section 7 of the Act. He would also contend that the plaintiff who has been in joint possession of the plot in dispute for the past 50-60 years, has been ordered to be evicted illegally by the Revenue Authorities invoking the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. 10. On a perusal of the entire materials on record, it is found that the plaintiff has not chosen to examine any of the elder members of the village to substantiate his vehement plea that he has been in possession of the joint possession in dispute for the past 50-60 years. He has produced the site plan, Exhibit P-1, which cannot be at all a document of title. It is an undisputed fact that the subject well is situate within the abadi deh of village Sitawali. Plaintiff during the course of cross-examination has unambiguously admitted that the plot in dispute was owned by the entire community of the village. The subject well within the abadi deh had become defunct on account of non-user. As per Section 2(g)(iv) of the Act, such plot would also fall within the definition of “shamlat deh”. The well was admittedly used by the entire villagers. The well which is located in the abadi deh of the village could be used only for drinking purposes by the villagers. The property which falls within the definition of “shamlat deh” does not vest in any individual even if there was a different user of such property. Further, the document, Exhibit P-5, produced by the plaintiff would go to establish that plot No. 247 measuring 217 sq. yards has been marked for Shamlat Deh well. Thus, the document produced on the site of the plaintiff has cut the very foundation of the case projected by the plaintiff. 11. Under Section 13 o the Act, the order passed by the Revisional Court under the provisions of the Act reaches its finality and the same cannot be called in question in a Civil Court by filing a suit. Therefore, the suit itself is barred by law. 11. Under Section 13 o the Act, the order passed by the Revisional Court under the provisions of the Act reaches its finality and the same cannot be called in question in a Civil Court by filing a suit. Therefore, the suit itself is barred by law. Further, nothing has been shown before the Court that the order passed by the Revisional Court is illegal and void ab initio. 12. Both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the plot in dispute is owned by the Gram Panchayat and that the Revisional Court has rightly passed an order of ejectment as against the plaintiff. I do not find any merit in the appeal. Further, no substantial question of law has arisen for determination in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.