R.S.A.No. 3574 of 2008(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3574 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision:August 19, 2009 Balbir Singh ---Appellant versus Gram Panchayat Village Jhuggian Ghulam ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Naresh Prabhakar,Advocate, for the appellant Mrs. J.J.Kaur, Advocate, for the respondent. *** SABINA J. Plaintiff – Balbir Singh had filed a suit for permanent injunction. Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 14.6.2007 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by District Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 26.4.2008. Hence, the present appeal. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned trial court in paras 1 and 2 of its judgment read as under:- R.S.A.No. 3574 of 2008(O&M) {2} “It is the case of plaintiff that suit land is recorded as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat in the revenue record. Family of the plaintiff has been residing in the village and plaintiff has been coming in possession of suit land peacefully, for the last more than 20 years. Defendants have no connection with the suit land, but they have been giving threats to dispossess plaintiff from the suit land, forcibly and illegally. Defendants came to the spot on 10.8.1999 and tried to take possession of the suit land by ploughing the fields with a tractor. 2. Notice of the suit was given to defendant. Defendant No. 1 dhas contested the suit and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that suit is not maintainable in the present form; plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit; this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. The property of Gram Panchayat is under illegal and Zabaran Kabaz and law does not recognize such possession. On merits, it is admitted that suit land is recorded as shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat. It is denied that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land for the last 20 years. It is further stated that land in dispute is under management and control of Gram Panchayat, which has been leasing out the same through public auction. Some portion of the suit land is given on lease through public auction to defendant No. 2. Other averments have been denied.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- R.S.A.No. 3574 of 2008(O&M) {3} “(1)Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and entitled for injunction as prayed for ? OPP (2)Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD (3)Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (4)Relief After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained form interfering in his peaceful possession. The suit land is described as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasab Khewat. Admittedly, as per the revenue record, plaintiff is in unlawful possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 14//19 min(1-0), 21/1(1-7), 22 (-16), 15//14/2(2-18). However, with regard to the said khasra numbers, an ejectment order has already been passed against the plaintiff by the Collector, Kapurthala vide Ex. D-2 dated 28.3.1995. Plaintiff was also burdened with penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and was directed to pay arrears of Chakota amount to Rs. 24,000/-. In these circumstances, courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff did not advance his case. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 19, 2009 PARAMJIT