R.S.A. No.927 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.927 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:25.07.2011 Hari Singh ......Appellant Versus Gram Panchayat Dahar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record, is that Hari Singh son of Dharma-appellant-plaintiff(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that the ejectment order dated 30.01.2003 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, against him, the Appellate order dated 05.04.2004, revisional order dated 09.03.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division and the order dated 16.05.2006 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.7432 of 2006, are illegal, null & void, ab initio and not binding on his rights, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the Gram Panchayat and others- respondent-defendants(for brevity “the defendants”), from interfering in his peaceful possession over the disputed property. The defendants contested the suit and have stoutly denied the claim of the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 2. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court dismissed R.S.A. No.927 of 2011(O&M) 2 the suit of the plaintiff, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 26.04.2010. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the first Appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 12.10.2010. 3. Still, aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the appellant-plaintiff preferred the present regular second appeal. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this context. 5. As is evident from the record that, the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the property(street) in question, on which the plaintiff has made the encroachment. It is not a matter of dispute that defendant Devi Singh filed an ejectment petition against the plaintiff, invoking the provisions of Section 7 of The Punjab Village Common Lands(Regulation) Act, 1961(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). After completing the formalities, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade ordered the ejectment of the plaintiff from the suit property by way of order dated 30.01.2003. The appeal and revision petition filed by him(plaintiff) were dismissed as well by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, through the medium of orders dated 05.04.2004 and 09.03.2006, respectively. 6. Not only that, Civil Writ Petition No.7432 of 2006 filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by this Court and SLP has already been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Having lost upto the Hon'ble Apex Court, the plaintiff again started the second round of litigation and instituted the present suit. 7. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the land in dispute does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and the plaintiff is in its possession, so, the Courts below fell in legal error in dismissing his suit, lacks merit. 8. What is not disputed here is that, the ejectment order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, under Section 7 of the Act, against the plaintiff, has already attained the finality and upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The R.S.A. No.927 of 2011(O&M) 3 plaintiff was well in its right to raise a question of title before the Assistant Collector, as contemplated in proviso to Section 7 of the Act and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade was competent to decide the question of title there and then, before proceeding with the ejectment petition. To me, the plaintiff cannot now legally raise a question of title in the civil suit, where the jurisdiction of the civil court is specifically barred, as envisaged under Section 13 of the Act. Hence, the trial Court has rightly negatived the claim of the plaintiff. Not only that, the decision of the trial Court was upheld by the first Appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 12.10.2010, which in substance is, as under:- “I have considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and find that the short question to be decided by this Court is as to whether the ejectment order passed by ACI Grade which has been confirmed right upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India can be re-agitated or set aside by this Court when the grounds which have been taken in the present suit have been dealt with by the Courts in earlier litigation and also as to whether without proving the order sought to be challenged can be looked into by the court? In this behalf, the plaintiff himself has pleaded in his plaint that Devi Singh filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act titled Devi Singh Vs. Hari Singh by the ACI Grade, Panipat, which was allowed in favour of Devi Singh and against the plaintiff. The plaintiff again filed an appeal against the order of ACI Grade, Panipat before the learned Collector, who dismissed the same. Thereafter, an appeal filed before the learned Commissioner, Rohtak by the plaintiff was also dismissed on 9.3.2006. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a Civil Writ Petition No.7432 of 2006 before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana but the same was also dismissed on 16.5.2006. When plaintiff appeared as PW3 in the witness box, he deposed in his cross-examination that ACI Grade has passed the ejectment order against him in respect of Gali. He filed the appeal before Collector, Commissioner, Hon'ble High Court and then Hon'ble Supreme Court, which clearly envisaged that the plaintiff has lost upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Though the plaintiff has not proved any copy of order passed by either ACI Grade or order in appeal passed by Collector, Commissioner, Hon'ble High Court and even of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India but photo copy of the order of ACI Grade present on file goes to show that the plaintiff had taken the plea of a civil R.S.A. No.927 of 2011(O&M) 4 suit for injunction decreed in his favour and order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. passed by SDM, Panipat, but the same were negated by the ACI Class in his order and also not found relevant by the superior courts, therefore, when the plaintiff has already lost the battle upto the Apex Court, therefore, he has no right to re-agitate the matter again by filing the present suit. Moreover, the order passed by the then learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 25.8.1988 filed by one Ram Phal, Hari Singh and Randhir Singh against Lakhi Ram and others, copy of which is Ex.P13/A and order passed by Shri Satbir Singh Saini, HCS, the then SDM in proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C., copy of which is Ex.PW12/A are not at all binding on the defendants as they were not party to those proceedings. Moreover, where the question of vesting or non-vesting of property in question as to the question relating to the Shamlat nature of land involved, then the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted as held by Hon'ble High Court in Bishamber Dayal's case(supra), Baldev Singh and others' case (supra), Amin Chand's case(supra) and Swaran Singh's case(supra) relied by the respondents. All the authorities relied by the plaintiff are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 9. Learned counsel for the appellant did not point out any material, much less cogent, to indicate how and in what manner, any interference is called for, in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below. 10. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, to assail the findings of the Courts below. All the remaining contentions, pertaining to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on his behalf, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below, in this relevant direction. 11. Neither any question of law, much less substantial, is involved in this regular second appeal, as contemplated under Section 100 CPC, nor any other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. R.S.A. No.927 of 2011(O&M) 5 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. July 25, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE