Civil Revision No. 2550 of 2009 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2550 of 2009 Date of decision: 24th of March, 2011 Gram Panchayat …..Petitioner Versus Gurdev Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. M.K. Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.P.S. Tung, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. A.P.S. Mann, Addl. A.G. Punjab, with Mr. Simarjot Singh Dhillon, AAG, Punjab. **** A.N. JINDAL J. This petition assails the order dated 29.01.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional District Judge, Moga, accepting the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’) and granting ad-interim injunction in his favour, while reversing the order dated 01.06.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Moga. The factual background of the case is that the respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that the suit property is owned by the defendant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’). However, he is in possession over the same for the last 50 years as lessee. He has been paying yearly rent to the Gram Panchayat since then. However, the petitioner Civil Revision No. 2550 of 2009 - 2 - in connivance with the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 wants to dispossess him forcibly. Alongwith the suit, an application for grant of ad-interim injunction was also filed. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat of village Chuhar Singh Wala filed reply stating that the respondents are not in possession of any portion of the suit land and they are not entitled to any injunction. It was also denied that respondents are lessees over the suit property. Similarly, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their separate written statements alleged that the suit property is comprised of Khasra No. 23/18, which is divided into two portions. The plaintiff has not mentioned the area of that khasra number. The said land is owned by the Gram Panchayat, whereas they are in possession of the suit land. Consequently, the Gram Panchayat as well as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 sought dismissal of the application for grant of injunction. The trial Court decided against respondent No.1 and dismissed the application for grant of ad-interim injunction, whereas the Appellate Court decided in his favour. Arguments heard. Record perused. Admittedly, the land in dispute is a part of Khasra No.23/18 as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 2003-04 and the Gram Panchayat is owner of the suit property. The copies of the Jamabandis for the year 2003- 04 as well as 2004-05 disclose that respondent No.1 is in possession of only 2 Kanals of land instead of 8 Marlas out of Khasra No.23/18 out of total area of 8 Kanals. No document indicating that the respondent is a tenant over the suit property, has been produced. Only evidence is copies of Jamabandis, which reflect him as tenant at will. It is also revealed that on the request of the Gram Panchayat, copy of Khasra Girdawari was corrected and as per the corrected Khasra Girdawari, the respondents have not been shown in possession of the suit property. The respondents have also not produced any Civil Revision No. 2550 of 2009 - 3 - rent receipt for indicating their status as such. A Local Commissioner was appointed by this Court on 07.12.2010 in order to ascertain, whether there exists a pond on the disputed land and whether the same is the subject matter of encroachment by the respondents. Consequently, the Tehsildar, Moga, reported on 27.12.2010 as under:- “1. There exists a non-cultivating pond (chhappar) in 4 Kanals out of 8 Kanals of land comprised of Khasra No.23//18. 2. In the remaining 4 Kanals, Gurdev Singh (respondent No.1) is in illegal possession of the suit land and he has sown certain crops over the said 4 Kanals of land.” Now the question arises, whether an illegal possession of a person could be protected by grant of injunction under the Code. Certainly not. The Apex Court dealt with the issue in the judgment delivered in case Jagpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2011 (2) Scale 42 and observed as under:- “13. The appellants herein were trespassers who illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land by using muscle power/money power and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat. We are of the opinion that such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned. Even if the appellants have built houses on the land in question they must be ordered to remove their constructions, and possession of the land in question must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat. Regularizing such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of villagers of the village. The letter dated 26.09.2007 of the Government of Punjab permitting regularization of possession of these unauthorized occupants is not valid. We are of the opinion that such letters are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In our opinion such illegalities cannot be regularized. We cannot allow the common interest of the villagers to suffer merely Civil Revision No. 2550 of 2009 - 4 - because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years. xx xx xx 14. Ordinarily, compounding in such cases should only be allowed where the land has been leased to land less labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or the land is actually being used for a public purpose of the village e.g. running a school for the villagers, or a dispensary for them” Ultimately, in para No.22 of the above said judgment, the Hon’ble Court has observed as under:- “22. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.” In the instant case also, status of Gurdev Singh-respondent is not better than that of a trespasser. As such, he cannot be allowed to stay over the land in dispute. Consequently, respondent (Gurdev Singh) having no prima facie case in his favour, cannot be granted the relief of injunction. Civil Revision No. 2550 of 2009 - 5 - In these circumstances, this petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 29.01.2009 (Annexure P-2) is set aside. Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab and the Deputy Commissioners of all the Districts with a direction to comply with the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagpal Singh's case in letter and spirit, so that the illegal encroachments could be removed. (A.N. JINDAL) March 24, 2011 JUDGE ajp