Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 530 (PNJ)

Balbir Singh v. Gram Panchayat

2014-03-12

RAKESH GARG

body2014
JUDGMENT Rakesh Garg, J. 1. This is plaintiffs second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit property and the entries in the revenue record are incorrect and liable to be rectified along with the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering into his possession over the suit land and dispossessing him therefrom except in due course of law, has been dismissed. In nutshell, case of the plaintiff-appellant is that he is owner in possession of land measuring 4 Kanals 9 Marlas comprised of Rect. No. 19, Killa No. 8/2 situated at village Karia Pehlwan, Tehsil and District Ferozepur, as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1978-79. It is alleged that the said land was kept as Bachat land along with some other land of the village, total measuring 174 Kanals 2 Marlas including the suit land. It is further alleged that earlier this land was in possession of Sohan Singh, his father, and thereafter he is recorded in possession of the same and the said land is not the ownership of the Gram Panchayat, which has no concern with the same; whereas entries made, in the revenue record in the name of "Jumla Mushtarka Malkan" were changed in the name of defendant, which is illegal. It is further alleged that the land in dispute never remained in possession of the defendant rather the plaintiff is in possession of the same since long. Since the defendant-respondents are strong persons, they are trying to interfere in his possession over the suit property and are threatening to dispossess him, and thus, necessity arose to file the instant suit. 2. Defendant-respondent contested the suit raising various preliminary objections. It was submitted that the Gram Panchayat is owner of the suit property. The Gram Panchayat is leasing out the suit land every year, however the appellant has filed the instant suit to protect his illegal possession as he has occupied the suit land illegally on 13.06.2008 and since he is an unauthorized occupant of the suit land, no injunction can be issued against the defendants, who are the true owners of the land in dispute, and thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 3. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the present suit is false and frivolous? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD 4. Relief. 4. Thereafter, the trial Court afforded opportunities to both the parties to lead evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the trial Court decided issue No. 1 against the plaintiff-appellant, however, issues No. 2 and 3 were decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and resultantly the trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 01.09.2011. 5. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by the first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 06.10.2012. 6. Still not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal submitting that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: (i) Whether the orders of both the Ld. Courts below are illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside? (ii) Whether evidence was not appreciated properly by both the Ld. Courts below? (iii) Whether Jumla Mushtarka Malkan vest in the Gram Panchayat? (iv) Whether evidence of Atma Singh who appeared without any authority was wrongly taken in consideration by the Ld. Courts below? 7. In support of his case, counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the land of "Jumla Mushtarka Malkan" is owned by the proprietary body of the village or by the person who stepped into the footstep of proprietor, and thus, the plaintiff-appellant being a person who settled in the village after partition of the country, is co-sharer in the land in dispute, whereas the defendant-respondents are not owners of the suit land, and thus, he is entitled to the decree, as claimed. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute the fact that he is a non-proprietor of the village and thus, had no locus to claim any title in the suit property which allegedly belongs to "Jumla Mushtarka Malkan" and vests in proprietary body. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute the fact that he is a non-proprietor of the village and thus, had no locus to claim any title in the suit property which allegedly belongs to "Jumla Mushtarka Malkan" and vests in proprietary body. Not only this, learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out as to how the instant suit for declaration of his title was maintainable in the Civil Court in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, which bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide question of title of such land. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in this appeal as no substantial question of law arises therein. Dismissed.