RSA No.1319 of 2010 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1319 of 2010 Date of Decision: 28.01.2011 Ranbir Singh ……Appellant Versus Gram Panchayat Village Beholi …...Respondent Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiff-Ranbir Singh, having lost in both the Courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Appellant-plaintiff filed suit against defendant-respondent- Gram Panhayat alleging that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 30 kanals 18 marlas. Other cosharers in the suit land have given power of attorney to the plaintiff to file and contest the instant suit. Plaintiff’s father purchased the suit land in the year 1980 and became owner in possession thereof. After his death, plaintiff has become owner in possession of the suit land along with his brothers and sisters. Defendant threatened to lease out the suit land and to dispossess the plaintiff therefrom illegally and forcibly. Accordingly, plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from doing so. The defendant contested the suit and denied the plaint allegations. It was pleaded that the suit land vests in defendant-Gram Panchayat. Plaintiff has no right, title or interest therein. Revenue entries RSA No.1319 of 2010 - 2 - in the names of plaintiff’s father Parkash are wrong and illegal. Defendant has been leasing out of the suit land from year to year for the last more than 18 years. Plaintiff’s father was owner in possession of other land measuring 9 kanals 17 marlas which was illegally exchanged with suit land belonging to defendant-Gram Panchayat vide resolution No.3 dated 24.03.1981. However, the said exchange was found to be not in the interest of the village community nor the exchanged land was equal in value to the value of the suit land. Consequently, vide order dated 24.09.1984, permission for exchange was cancelled. Thereafter defendant-Gram Panchayat took possession of the suit land and started leasing it from year to year. However, entries regarding ownership of the suit land (initially recorded on the basis of exchange) illegally continued in the name of plaintiff’s father. Plaintiff has already sold away land measuring 9 kanals 17 marlas which had been given to defendant in exchange of the suit land. Plaintiff had challenged cancellation of the exchange by filing writ petition in this Court, but the writ petition was also dismissed. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 09.09.2009 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by plaintiff stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 24.11.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Plaintiff’s case is that his father had purchased the suit land in the year 1980. However, there is no evidence regarding the same. No sale deed regarding purchase of the suit land by plaintiff’s father has been produced in evidence. On the other hand, it has come in evidence that suit land was given to plaintiff’s father by Gram Panchayat in exchange of other RSA No.1319 of 2010 - 3 - land. However, the Government did not approve the said exchange and cancelled the same vide order dated 24.09.1984. Thereupon plaintiff took back his land measuring 9 kanals 17 marlas and defendant took back the suit land. Writ petition challenging cancellation of the said exchange, filed by plaintiff’s father, stands dismissed. Consequently, plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land. Entries in revenue record in the name of plaintiff’s father were made on the basis of exchange, but the said exchange stands cancelled and cancellation of the exchange has been upheld by this Court. For the reasons aforesaid, it is manifest that that plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land and he has been rightly non-suited by the Courts below. Concurrent fining recorded by the Courts below is fully justified and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 28.01.2011 A.kaundal