RSA No.3373 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3373 of 2009 Date of Decision: 04.08.2010. Gram Panchayat Majra (D) through its Sarpanch .……Appellant Versus Puran and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Gram Panchayat, Majra (Defendant) has filed the instant second appeal, having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Suit was filed by Puran-respondent No.1 against appellant only. Proforma respondent Nos.2 to 7 were not party to the suit, but were impleaded as such in first appeal as well as in the instant second appeal without any apparent basis. Plaintiff alleged that he is owner in possession of the suit property which is ghair bearing No.7996 depicted in red colour with letters 'ABCD' in the site plan, since the time of his forefathers, but the defendant threatened to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property forcibly and illegally. Accordingly the plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from RSA No.3373 of 2009 -2- interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The defendant inter alia pleaded that defendant-Gram Panchayat is owner of the suit property and it is comprised khasra No.566. In the garb of the suit, the plaintiff wants to encroach upon the suit property and wants to take illegal possession thereof. Plaintiff has no concern with the suit property. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar vide judgment and decree dated 03.05.2007 decreed the plaintiff's suit and restrained the defendant from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment and decree dated 09.12.2008. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Following substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal:- “Whether blanket injunction granted by the Courts below is illegal and not sustainable?” Insofar as the finding of the Courts below that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property is concerned, the same does not require interference in second appeal because both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact in this regard on the basis of appreciation of evidence. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal warranting interference in second appeal. However, the plaintiff claimed himself to be owner of the RSA No.3373 of 2009 -3- suit property whereas defendant-Gram Panchayat claimed that defendant is owner of the suit property as it has vested in the defendant-Gram Panchayat. The question whether the suit property has vested in Gram Panchayat or not could not be adjudicated upon by the Civil Court. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to adjudicate upon the said question is barred by Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). In fact the Courts below have also not held the plaintiff to be owner of the suit property. However, learned lower appellate Court has observed in paragraph 13 of the judgment that the plot in suit is not part of property of Gram Panchayat. The lower appellate Court could not have recorded such a finding as jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate upon this question is specifically barred by Section 13 of the Act. Consequently, blanket injunction could not be granted in favour of the plaintiff and only limited injunction protecting the possession of the plaintiff could be granted, restraining the defendant from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land except in due course of law. Consequently, substantial question of law framed hereinabove is answered accordingly. It is expressly made clear that question of ownership of either party over the suit property is left open to be adjudicated upon by competent Court under the Act in appropriate proceedings if any that may be instituted and nothing observed in this judgment or the judgments of the Courts below shall have any bearing on the said question. In view of the aforesaid, the instant second appeal is RSA No.3373 of 2009 -4- allowed partly and judgments and decrees of the Courts below are modified to the extent that defendant-appellant shall stand restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 over the suit land except in due course of law. The parties are left to suffer their respective costs throughout. 04.08.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE