RSA No.2991 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2991 of 2007(O&M) Date of decision: 29.11.2010 Balbir Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Gram Panchayat Village Naglian and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) Plaintiff No.3 is before this Court, challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-Gram Panchayat from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs except through due process of law from the suit land, was dismissed. As per the averments made in the plaint, the suit property as mentioned in the heading of the plaint was earlier owned by ancestors of the plaintiffs. However, the same was mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat wrongly. Accordingly a suit was filed on 30.10.1958 by some of the proprietors of the village against the then Gram Panchayat and the same was decreed on 9.12.1958 and proprietors were declared to be owners in possession of the suit property and thus, the defendants had no concern with the suit property and since they intend to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs, the present suit was filed. Upon notice, the defendant-Gram Panchayat appeared. Apart RSA No.2991 of 2007(O&M) 2 from various legal objections, the objection of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was also taken as the suit land was described as 'Shamlat Deh' as defined under Section 2 (g)(I) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') which vests in the Gram Panchayat. On merits also, it was submitted that the alleged decree was a fraud upon the Court and was collusive and had not been passed in accordance with law by the Courts below and the same was not binding. It was the specific stand of the Gram Panchayat that the suit was barred under Section 13 of the Act. Both the Courts below on the basis of evidence on record recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs failed to establish and prove their locus standi qua disputed property by withholding best evidence i.e. the list of proprietors attached with the Civil Suit No.462-A of 2000 filed by the Gram Panchayat against the proprietors to establish the fact that the plaintiffs were proprietors and the land in dispute was owned and possessed by them along with other proprietors. The Courts below also found that in view of the specific bar, the civil court jurisdiction was barred. In the present appeal, the appellant has submitted that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: “i) Whether the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 are to be applied retrospectively or prospectively? ii) Whether the Court can go beyond the pleadings of the parties and adjudicate upon the controversy? Iii) Whether the judgments and decrees under challenge suffer from the principle of perversity? iv) Whether the property named as 'Shamlat Deh' RSA No.2991 of 2007(O&M) 3 can be owned by the Gram Panchayat?” In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that once decree dated 9.12.1958 was passed declaring that the land vests in the proprietors of the village, the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act which came into existence in 1961 and are prospective in nature, cannot be applied in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Gram Panchayat Village Bhatholi Kalan v. Jogar Ram and others 1991 PLJ 260 to contend that such decrees which were passed before coming into existence of 1961 Act, declaring the proprietors of the village as owners of the Shamlat land, are protected. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. There is no dispute with aforesaid proposition of law as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, both the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the appellant has failed to connect himself with the decree dated 9.12.1958 sought to be relied upon to protect his rights. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law, as argued, arises. Dismissed. November 29, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE