R.S.A. No. 3990 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3990 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.1.2011 Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha of village Nanansoo, District Patiala and another ......Appellants Versus Jang Singh and another .......Respondents ******* CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction alleging therein that Gram Panchayat was the owner of the property in dispute. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961 was filed against the defendant. The said petition was, however, not duly contested by the Gram Panchayat as defendant was the nephew of the then Sarpanch. The petition, filed by the Gram Panchayat, was decided in favour of the defendant. Appeal filed by Gram Panchayat was dismissed. The order, passed by the Collector, was a result of fraud and misrepresentation and now the defendant was threatening to take possession of the suit land. R.S.A. No. 3990 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Defendant, in his written statement, denied the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation levelled against him. It was further averred that the Collector as well as Appellate Authority had decided in favour of the defendant after due contest by the Gram Panchayat. Gram Panchayat had also filed a writ petition before this Court and the same was dismissed in limine. Gram Panchayat had filed a special leave petition and the same was dismissed by the Apex Court. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration that order obtained by the defendant from the Court of Collector, Patiala under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act is illegal, null and void ? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit land? OPP. 3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property ? OPP. 4. Whether the court has jurisdiction to try the suit ? OPP. 5. Relief.” The learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 29.3.2004. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 22.7.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. Admittedly, the dispute qua the possession of the plaintiff was earlier raised by the Gram Panchayat and up to the Apex Court the R.S.A. No. 3990 of 2010 (O&M) 3 defendant was held to be owner in possession of the suit land. In these circumstances, since the matter had already been decided up to the Apex Court qua the ownership and possession of the defendant over the suit land, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 14, 2011 Anand