C.R. No. 1649 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1649 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.07.2010 The Buria Primary Agriculture Society, Buria .......... Petitioner Versus The Gram Panchayat, Bhogpur ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. J.S. Chahal, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, advocate for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner Society has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the orders passed by the learned Courts below, vide which application filed by the petitioner society under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the defendant / respondent / Gram Panchayat from changing the nature of the property and from cutting the trees standing thereon, stands declined. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from changing the nature of the suit land falling in Khasra No. 146 measuring 2K-10M, and from cutting and removing the trees standing thereon, on the ground, that the property in dispute was purchased by the petitioner from Ram Singh C.R. No. 1649 of 2010 -2- ***** s/o Lal Singh, who was recorded as owner in possession of the property in the revenue record. The case of the petitioner is, that in view of the amendment of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, and the notification issued by the State of Haryana, the land which was earlier shown to be under possession of Ram Singh, as Mustarka Malkan, was wrongly entered in the name of the Gram Panchayat. Subsequently, ownership and possession entry was changed. The petitioner being the owner was entitled to the relief claimed. The suit was contested by raising a preliminary objection, that on earlier occasion a similar suit was filed by the Society in which application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed, and the appeal filed against the order was also dismissed, and thereafter the plaintiff / Society in said case chose not to appear and the suit was dismissed in default. The learned trial Court, as well as the learned appellate Authority being impressed by the stand of the respondent declined the temporary injunction prayed for by the petitioner. The learned Courts below ignored the fact, that the subsequent to passing of the order, another resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat for constructing a Harijan Chaupal, on the remaining part of the land. The suit was, therefore, filed on independent cause of action, which arose after dismissal of the earlier suit in default. The application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, could not be dismissed on this ground. C.R. No. 1649 of 2010 -3- ***** This Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case could have remanded the case back for adjudication on merit, but keeping in view the stand taken by the respondent that it would maintain the nature of the land as exists today, and not to cut the trees, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays, that this revision be disposed of in terms of the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondent, with a direction to the learned trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Prayer is granted. Revision is disposed of accordingly, by directing the respondent to maintain status quo regarding nature of land and not to cut the trees standing thereon. The learned trial Court is further directed to expedite the hearing of the case. 22.07.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE