RSA No.3302 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3302 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 27, 2009 Girdhara Singh ...........Appellant Versus Gram Panchayat Village Rattangarh, Tehsil and District Ambala ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.R.L.Sharma Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Girdhara Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Panchayat and all its functionaries from forcibly and illegally dispossessing the plaintiff from his bara/property situated within the Abadi of village Rattangarh, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala which form part of Abadi Khasra no.38/2 which is more clearly depicted by letters CDEF in the accompanying site plan by demolishing and removing the foundations and the barbed wire and the Safeda Kikkar trees etc from the said property. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed an appeal which was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 30.7.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District Judge in paras 2 to 7 of its judgment, read as under:- “ 2. It is case of the respondent-plaintiff that he is oldest RSA No.3302 of 2008 (O&M) 2 resident of village Rattangarh where he along with his family members settled some where in 1947. Plaintiff and his brothers purchased agricultural land in village Rattangarh abutting Abadi land. A part of this land is being used for residential purposes. His plot/Bara is measuring 40'x50' which is in his possession since the time of his arrival in the village. It is being used for agricultural purposes as well as for miscellaneous purposes. It is bounded by boundaries on three sides except East where land of abadi is situated. 3. It is further case of plaintiff-respondent that Gram Panchayat has no concern with it. No one ever interfered in his possession. In 1988, a few residents of village Rattangarh filed a suit against him claiming that the suit property was a part of village pond comprising Khasra No.25//34. That suit was decided by the Civil Court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.9.97 holding that plaintiff was not in possession of any part of pond land. It was also ruled that he was in possession of Abadi land of Khasra No.38//2. Thus, his possession is proved clearly and he has been enjoying the suit land without any interference. Smt.Mela Rani present Sarpanch of village Rattangarh is inimical towards him. She wants to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land illegally. On 10.7.2000, she issued a notice to him directing him to vacate the suit land within 7 days. Plaintiff filed reply to the notice, but without considering his reply, Gram Panchayat is adamant to dispossess him therefrom. So, plaintiff filed this suit. 4. On the other hand, it is case of the appellant-defendant that RSA No.3302 of 2008 (O&M) 3 plaintiff has no right, title or interest whatsoever in the suit property. Same is part and parcel of village pond bearing Khasra no.25//34. This court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit and the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands. Plaintiff is in possession of the suit land, so his suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. 5. It is of-course admitted that plaintiff had been residing in village Rattangarh, but at present, he has shifted to Ambala City and has been residing there since so many years. Plaintiff has not purchased any land in village Rattangarh. He failed to give particulars of the land allegedly purchased by him and his brother. 6. Suit land i.e. Bara measuring 40' x 50' is not in possession of the plaintiff. Recently, plaintiff has made some construction on Shamlat land. It is not in Abadi. Other villagers had also made illegal attempt /encroachment. So, to remove illegal possession of the people from the Panchayat lands, defendant is taking action against them. Khasra no.25//34 is got demarcated and illegal possession of the plaintiff-respondent was found. So, notice dated 10.7.2000 was served upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that he had filed a suit against Gram Panchayat in 1997, but after examining the judgment passed in that suit, his claim was found wrong. Actually, under the grab of this judgment, he wants to encroach upon the property illegally. So, his encroachment was removed and possession was taken. A barbed fencing was erected around it. So the suit may be dismissed. RSA No.3302 of 2008 (O&M) 4 7. Plaintiff filed replication controverting contents of the written statement and reiterating contents of the plaint.” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the property?OPP 2. Whether the suit property becomes a part of abadi of Khasra no. 38/2 marked as CDEF in the site plan attached with the plaint?OPP 3. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs has not come to the court with clean hands?OPD 5. Whether the suit for permanent injunction when plaintiff is in possession of the suit land is not maintainable?OPD 6. Whether the property is part of Khasra no.25//34? OPD 7. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. So far as the suit property is concerned, the same is owned by Gram Panchayat. The case of the plaintiff is that he is in possession of the suit land since the year 1947-48. Learned Additional District Judge in its judgment has observed that in his cross-examination, plaintiff has stated that he had not caste any vote in village Rattangarh nor he was residing in the said village. It has been further observed that in earlier suit it was found that the plaintiff was in possession of Khasra No.38 rectangle No.2. However, Gram Panchayat was not a party to the said suit and, hence, any RSA No.3302 of 2008 (O&M) 5 finding with regard to possession in the earlier suit cannot be said to be binding on the Gram Panchayat. Plaintiff , on the other hand, failed to establish his title over the property in dispute and had failed to give its boundaries regarding the suit property. Rather Gram Panchayat had erected barbed fence around the suit property. In these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge rightly held that the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court, Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge August 27, 2009 arya