Civil Revision No. 6253 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6253 of 2007 Date of Order: 28.08.2009 Arjan Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Gram Panchayat, Ghaggar Sarai ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioners filed a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the Gram Panchayat from interfering with their peaceful possession over the suit land depicted by the letters ABCD and EFGH, as their father Sardar Sahib Singh had purchased the land depicted as EFGH from Jaswant Singh vide registered sale deed dated 29.09.1958 and the land depicted as ABCD vide writing dated 12.10.1963 from one Chhajja Singh. In response, the Gran Panchayat pleaded that the petitioners have no right, title or interest in the suit land as it is a 'gair mumkin tobha' i.e. a village pond and vests in the Gram Panchayat. The trial court vide order dated 12.10.2006 directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the property in dispute. The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Adhoc, Patiala, however, accepted the appeal, filed by the Gram Panchayat and vacated the order of status quo. Counsel for the petitioners submits that it is true that the writing dated 12.10.1963 is not registered and, therefore, does not pass a valid title but the question that arises for consideration at the stage of an interim Civil Revision No. 6253 of 2007 -2- injunction was whether, during the pendency of the suit, the Gram Panchayat should be allowed to forcibly dispossess the petitioner. It is further argued that the suit land adjoins the village pond but does not fall within the boundary of the pond. It is submitted that the interim order dated 12.10.2006 directing parties to maintain status quo should be directed to continue during the pendency of the suit. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders. In the present case, the petitioners claim to be in possession of the land described as EFGH since 1963 on the basis of an unregistered sale deed. Though an unregistered sale deed does not transfer valid title but as the petitioners are in possession from 1963, it would be appropriate to direct the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the property described as ABCD, EFGH during the pendency of the suit. Ordered accordingly. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura, is directed to decide the suit, within a period of six months by granting short dates as the suit is pending since long. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. August 28, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) NT JUDGE