C.R. No.4078 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4078 of 2008 Date of decision:14.12.2009 Jag Singh and others .......Petitioners versus Gram Panchayat Ukhalchana ....Respondent Coram:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Jagat Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the respondent. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiffs have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below in seeking temporary injunction. Petitioners filed suit for permanent injunction against respondent-Gram Panchayat. Along with suit, the petitioners moved application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the respondent from dispossessing the petitioners from the suit property till final decision of the suit. The petitioners alleged that they are biswedars and permanent residents of village Ukhalchana. The disputed plot marked by letters ABCD in site plan is situated in Abadi Deh, having khasra No.104. The petitioners are owners in possession thereof. They have been using this plot for tethering cattle and keeping firewood and fodder etc. They have also installed hand pump and jet pump. The doors of their adjoining houses also open in the said suit property. The defendant forcibly wanted to C.R. No.4078 of 2008 -2- demolish the wall at points EF, to extend the passage No.288 upto Johar bearing Khasra No.109. The defendant-respondent inter alia plead that the plaintiffs are neither owners nor in possession of the suit property. The suit land is vacant land with bushes and kikkar trees standing therein. The suit land vests in Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). Passage comprised of khasra No.288 coming from eastern side leads upto the pond. The plaintiffs have filed another suit wherein application for temporary injunction moved by the plaintiffs was dismissed. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar vide order dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P-1) dismissed the application of plaintiffs for temporary injunction. Appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the said order has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment dated 30.04.2008 (Annexure P-2). The instant revision petition has been preferred challenging both the said orders. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that petitioners are in possession of the suit property and, therefore, they cannot be dispossessed therefrom by respondent- Gram Panchayat. The contention cannot be accepted because there is no material on record to substantiate the plea of the petitioners that they are in possession of the suit land. On the other hand, the suit land has been referred as a plot by the petitioners themselves. C.R. No.4078 of 2008 -3- Under Section 2(1)(g)(4a) of the Act, vacant land situated in Abadi Deh and not owned by any person is part of Shamlat Deh and the same vests in Gram Panchayat under Section 4 of the Act. Consequently, the suit land being vacant land and part of Abadi Deh is prima facie Shamlat Deh and would vest in Gram Panchayat i.e respondent-defendant. In addition to the aforesaid, the plaintiffs have filed another suit claiming that the eastern passage bearing khasra No.288 leads upto their wall. The defendant denied the same. Plaintiffs' prayer for temporary injunction was declined in the other suit. Consequently, the plaintiffs cannot be granted temporary injunction in the instant suit. In addition to the aforesaid, both the Courts below have found that the petitioners do not have a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. The said conclusion cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, it is expressly made clear that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 14.12.2009. A.Kaundal