Regular Second Appeal No.3111 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3111 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 01, 2011 Rajinder Kumar and others ….Appellants Versus Gram Panchayat, Village Milk and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.P. Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellants. **** SABINA, J.(ORAL) Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that Resolution No.1 dated 21.01.2004 passed by the Gram Panchayat qua leasing of land was illegal, null and void. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 31.01.2008. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal. The said appeal filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed by the Addl. District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 05.12.2008. Hence, the present appeal. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were owners in possession of the suit land being proprietors of the village. The suit land was Mushtarka Malkan Digar Hakdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi. The ownership of the suit land was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat vide mutation No.754. However, this Court ordered that the suit land belonged to the -1- Regular Second Appeal No.3111 of 2010 (O&M) proprietors of the village. Hence, the defendant No.1 could not lease out the suit land for the purpose of installation of petrol pump. The case of the defendants on the other hand was that the suit land was owned by the Gram Panchayat. The suit land was Shamlat Deh and the plaintiffs were not the proprietors of the village and had no concerned with the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Courts:- “1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree for declaration, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree for permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3 .Whether suit is not maintainable?OPD 4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD 5 .Whether this suit is barred under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC?OPD 6. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The plaintiffs had failed to lead any evidence to establish the fact that they were proprietors of the village. As per the revenue record placed on record, the suit land was owned by defendant No.1. This Court ordered that the suit land be mutated in the name of the proprietors of the village. However, the plaintiffs failed to lead any evidence to the effect that they were the proprietors of the village or that they were in possession of the -2- Regular Second Appeal No.3111 of 2010 (O&M) suit land. As per demarcation report, on record, the defendants were in possession of the suit land. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. 10.01.2011 (SABINA) vcgarg JUDGE -3-