Civil Revision No.5433 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5433 of 2011 Date of Decision:06.09.2011 Jagdish Rai ......Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat Village Khanal Khurd and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Jagdish Rai son of Kesho Ram-petitioner- plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the Gram Panchayat of Village Khanal Khurd, its Sarpanch and Raj Kumar son of Janak Raj-respondent-defendants(for short “the defendants”), from forcibly interfering in his possession and to change the nature of the property in dispute. 2. The case set-up by the plaintiff, in brief, insofar as relevant was that, he is owner and in possession of the suit property, but the contrary entries regarding ownership in the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue record, are wrong, illegal and not binding on his rights. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the plaintiff that he is owner and in possession of the property in dispute. The contrary entries in the revenue record are illegal and the defendant-Gram Panchayat has got no right, title or interest to dispossess him from Civil Revision No.5433 of 2011 2 the property in question. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants, in the manner depicted hereinabove. Sequelly, the plaintiff has also filed an application for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC, on the same lines of pleadings, as contained in the plaint. 4. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff, filed the written statement and reply to the stay application, in which it was explained that the plaintiff took the suit property on yearly lease(Theka/Chakauta) from defendant- Gram Panchayat in the years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97, but illegally got entered his name in the column of possession. According to the defendants that, after 1997, the suit property was given on yearly lease(Theka/Chakauta) to various auction bidders, including Bidder Chand, brother of the plaintiff, in the years 1993 and 2002. The land was again leased out to one Bhola Singh son of Joginder Singh, for one year i.e. 2006-2007 and Baljit Singh son of Ram Kishan, for the year 2007-2008 by way of auction. The entries of possession in the name of the plaintiff as “Gair Marusi”, were stated to be wrong and against the factual position at the spot. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint/stay application and prayed for its dismissal. 5. The trial Court dismissed the stay application of the plaintiff, by means of impugned order dated 21.03.2009. 6. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 17.05.2011. 7. The petitioner-plaintiff still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders of the courts below and preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone Civil Revision No.5433 of 2011 3 through the record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this relevant behalf. 9. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that although, the plaintiff is owner and has been recorded in possession of the suit land as “Gair Marusi,” so, the courts below committed a mistake in dismissing his stay application, lacks merit. 10. As is evident from the record that, according to the plaintiff, he is owner and in possession of the suit land, but the contrary entries, depicting defendant-Gram Panchayat as its owner in the column of ownership, are illegal and not binding on his rights. But no material, much less cogent, is forthcoming on record to show, as to when, how, in what manner and by which means, the plaintiff became the owner of the property in dispute. The mere entry that he has been recorded in possession of the suit property as “Gair Marusi” in the revenue record, is meaningless, against the factual position and ipso facto is not sufficient to hold the plaintiff as a tenant in the absence of any bilateral agreement of tenancy or payment of rent etc. in this relevant context. 11. On the contrary, defendant-Gram Panchayat has been recorded as owner of the suit property and there is ample material on record that it was leased out by it(Gram Panchayat) to the successful bidders on yearly basis on lease/Chakauta. It is not a matter of dispute that the plaintiff has taken the land on lease in the years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. Subsequently, it was leased out to his brother(Bidder Chand) in the years 1993 and 2002. Again, it was leased out to Bhola Singh son of Joginder Singh, for one year i.e. 2006-2007 and Baljit Singh son of Ram Kishan, for the year 2007-2008 by way of open auction. 12. Meaning thereby, the courts below, having scanned the relevant material on record in the right perspective, have held that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his ownership and possession over the property in Civil Revision No.5433 of 2011 4 dispute and have recorded the cogent grounds to negative his(plaintiff) claim in this relevant connection, by way of impugned orders. Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the suit, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. 14. Needless to mention that, nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case during the course of trial of the suit, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present revision petition. September 06, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE