RSA No.2375 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2375 of 2010 Date of Decision:30.06.2010 The Gram Panchayat, Sisai Kali Rawan .……Appellant Versus The Gram Panchayat, Sisai Bolan ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Dr. Parveen Hans, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiff-Gram Panchayat, Sisai Kali Rawan has approached this Court by way of instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. This is unfortunate litigation between two Gram Panchayats. Earlier there was a single village known as Sisai having Gram Panchayat, Sisai with two Panas i.e Kali Rawan and Bolan . The suit land, which is recorded as Johar Ranisar in the revenue record, vested in Gram Panchayat, Sisai. Subsequently, the aforesaid two Panas formed two separate villages and have now separate Gram Panchayats i.e Gram Panchayat, Sisai Kali Rawan (Plaintiff) and Gram Panchayat, Sisai Bolan (defendant). The plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff also has half share in the suit land which is situated within the territory of defendant- Gram Panchayat. The plaintiff, accordingly, sought declaration that plaintiff is owner in possession of half share of the suit land. RSA No.2375 of 2010 -2- Mutation thereof in favour of defendant has been challenged. Permanent injunction has also been claimed. The defendant's case is that part of the land of Johar Ranisar falling in the territory of plaintiff-Panchayat has vested in the plaintiff whereas suit land which is also part of Johar Ranisar falling in the territory of defendant-Panchayat has vested in the defendant Panchayat. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.2004 dismissed the suit, accepting the stand of the defendant. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. It is undisputed that the suit land falls within the territory of defendant-Panchayat. Accordingly, under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), the suit land falling in the territory of defendant-Panchayat has vested in the defendant whereas part of the land of Johar Ranisar falling in the territory of plaintiff-Panchayat has vested in the plaintiff. The dishonest intention of plaintiff is evident inasmuch as the plaintiff is claiming exclusive ownership over the land of Johar Ranisar which is falling in plaintiff's territory, but is claiming half share in the land of Johar Ranisar which is falling in the territory of defendant-Panchayat. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to orders of the consolidation authorities and mutation. However, the same were RSA No.2375 of 2010 -3- passed before coming into force of the Act. On coming into force of the Act, the suit land falling in the territory of defendant-Panchayat vested in the defendant whereas the land of Johar Ranisar falling in the territory of plaintiff-Panchayat vested in the plaintiff. In view of the aforesaid, I find no force in the instant second appeal. The plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land which has vested in defendant-Panchayat being within the territory of defendant-Panchayat. There is no illegality or perversity in the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below against the plaintiff. The instant second appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 30.06.2010. A. Kaundal