RSA No. 1934 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1934 of 2009 Date of decision: 8.5.2009 Gram Panchayat, village Chappar Chiri Kalan, through its Sarpanch Gurbachan Singh … Appellant Versus Mewa Singh and others … Respondents Present: Mr. S.S.Siao, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present regular second appeal is directed by the defendant-Gram Panchayat (defendant No.4) against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction, has been decreed. Plaintiff Balak Ram in his suit pleaded that he is a village artisan and a black-smith and that earlier his father was doing the same business. The village proprietary body had put his father in possession of the suit land belonging to the said proprietary body and since then, he is in possession thereof without payment of rent and he rendered the services of a village artisan to the proprietary body of the village. A petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands(Regulation) Act,1961, was filed by the Gram Panchayat before the Collector which was rejected and the litigation was taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court which upheld the order of the Collector meaning thereby that the possession of the plaintiff was kept intact. However, during the pendency of the case before the High Court, the Gram Panchayat (defendant No.4) took possession of the suit property from the plaintiff but on decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, when the plaintiff moved an application under RSA No. 1934 of 2009 2 Section 144 CPC before the DDPO, Ropar, the possession was handed over back to him. But thereafter also, defendants 1 to 3 started interfering in plaintiff’s possession with the help of police and Gram Panchayat and did not permit the plaintiff to cultivate and reap the harvest of which they had no right since possession to the plaintiff had been restored after long litigation for which the plaintiff requested the defendants not to do so but to no avail and this led to the filing of the present suit. Upon notice of the suit, defendants 1 to 3 in their written statement took up the plea that the suit of the plaintiff is barred in view of provisions of Section 13 of the Act ibid. It was pleaded that the land was given to plaintiff’s father but the plaintiff left the village and has not rendered any services to the village and therefore, possession of the land was taken back from him and thereafter, the land is in possession of the defendants. It was further pleaded that the Hon’ble Apex Court had accepted the revision only in respect of Khasra No. 79(0-16) and as regards the remaining land, no decision was given and thus, the decision of the Director Panchayat dated 23.1.1991 stood final. Defendant No.4, Gram Panchayat, in its written statement also admitted that the litigation went upto the Hon’ble Apex Court and the possession was delivered to the plaintiff and that the Panchayat never tried to interfere in his possession over the suit property. Trial Court on appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide its judgment and decree dated 8.5.2007 decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and further restrained them from interfering in any manner in the cultivation, sowing, reaping or harvesting operation being carried out by the plaintiff. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, only defendant No.4, namely, Gram Panchayat, filed an appeal which was dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 6.2.2009. Hence, the present second appeal by defendant No.4, Gram Panchayat. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the parties, have concurrently held that since the question of title is not involved, the suit of the plaintiff is not barred under Section 13 of the Act ibid. It has further been found that besides the admission of Gram Panchayat in its written statement as to the possession RSA No. 1934 of 2009 3 of plaintiff Balak Ram over the suit property, his possession stands reflected in the revenue record, i.e. jamabandi Exhibit PW1/B and khasra girdawari Exhibit PW1/C, wherein it stands specifically mentioned that the possession has been handed over to plaintiff Balak Ram vide Rapat No. 49. On the contrary, no revenue record has been placed on record by the defendants to show their possession over the suit property. So much so, the possession to the plaintiff has been restored by the revenue officials as per directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Further more, the findings of the trial Court have only been challenged by defendant No.4 i.e. Gram Panchayat, who in its written statement has already admitted the possession of plaintiff Balak Ram whereas the other defendants have not even come forward to challenge the same either before the first appellate Court or before this Court in the present second appeal. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. May 8, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE