Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 557 (PNJ)

Gram Panchayat Mauja Uninda v. Dalu Ram

2014-03-18

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

body2014
JUDGMENT Rajiv Narain Raina, J. 1. CM is allowed as prayed for and Local Commissioner's report is taken on record. A perusal of the report of the Local Commissioner dated 01st March, 2014 as sought by this Court by the order dated 20th February, 2014 leaves no manner of doubt that the stand taken in this petition was factually correct. It follows, that the stand taken by the respondents before this Court was false as both can't co-exist. The Local Commissioner appointed by this Court has answered the question framed by this Court in the motion order on which issue the parties are at variance, that is, whether the proposed Dharamshala is going to be built on vacant land or can only be constructed after demolishing existing structures/buildings. The Local Commissioner in his report has been answered in the favour of the petitioner recording after visiting the site in the following words:- "1. That there is no building or house on land bearing Khasra No. 33 and the same is lying vacant. Further no encroachment was found made on the said khasra number 33 by any person. Therefore, there is no requirement to demolish the structures/buildings. Further, the respectable persons present at the spot have also no objections for constructing the Dharamshala on the land bearing khasra No. 33. Therefore, the Dharashala can be constructed Dharamshala on the land bearing khasra No. 33. 2. That the petitioners No. 2 to 14 have constructed their houses in khasra No. 32. All the petitioners have made statement that they have constructed their houses on the land bearing khasra No. 32 and there is no house in khasra No. 33. Further they have stated that they have no objections if the Dharamshala is constructed on the land bearing khasra No. 33. The copy of the statement alongwith true translated copy is enclosed as annexure LC/1." 2. The report was made on the spot in the presence of the Halqa Patwari, the Chowkidar and Lambardar of the village, the former Sarpanch and four of the cooperating respondents namely, Dalu Ram, Beg Raj, Ram Autar and Rohtash who were present at the time when the Local Commissioner executed the commission. The photographs of the site have been appended with the report. The photographs of the site have been appended with the report. In the appeal filed by Dalu Ram alone against the order of the trial Court, injunction was granted by setting the order of the trial Judge. That reversal has brought the petitioner to this court in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. Mr. Bahl, learned senior counsel points out that the lower Appellate Court in granting injunction to the opposite party, plaintiff/respondents failed to keep in mind the provisions of S. 2(g)(4a) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as applicable to the State of Haryana that Makbuja Bashindagan Deh is Shamlat Deh land as recorded in the Jamabandi for 2006-07. 4. Besides, Dalu Ram, the sole appellant among several co-litigants was signatory to the resolution dated 06th May, 2012 wherein he had agreed that Dharamshala be made on Khasra No. 33, the land in question. Mr. Bahl submits that the suit itself was not maintainable before the Civil Court in view of S. 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as applicable to the State of Haryana. However, this Court is called upon to examine only the correctness of the order of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2. Therefore, the issue is left open for the petitioning Gram Panchayat to raise before the trial court. Needless to say that the issue raised appears to go to the root of jurisdiction. Consequently, the trial Court may do well in answering that question first as a preliminary issue may save time. However, no opinion is expressed thereon since it is presently exclusively in the domain of the trial judge. Nor will the trial judge be influenced by this order as to the merits of case or on the legal issue raised. 5. Since the petitioners before this Court have put the petitioning Gram Panchayat to considerable expense in sending the Commission and the stand of the plaintiff stands vindicated, and the respondent falsified, it appears justified that the expense of Rs. 40,000/- plus travelling and sundry expenses be borne in half between the two parties. Consequently, this petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 30th October, 2013 (P-3) is set aside and the respondents will pay Rs. 40,000/- plus travelling and sundry expenses be borne in half between the two parties. Consequently, this petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 30th October, 2013 (P-3) is set aside and the respondents will pay Rs. 23,000/- to the petitioner/defendants in Court on the next date of hearing or on any enlarged time, fixed at the discretion of the trial Court. However, till such time the aforesaid amount is not paid, the trial will not proceed. Petition allowed.