R.S.A. No. 2251 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2251 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.2.2011 Gram Panchayat Sunaria Kalan ......Appellant Versus Ramphal and others .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction with consequential relief of mandatory injunction. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that residents of the village Sunari Kalan were the owners in possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs were owners in possession of the suit land in terms of the order dated 9.4.1987 passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. In the said case the suit was decided against the Gram Panchayat. The suit had been filed under Section 13-A of the Village Common Lands Act. Thus, the Gram Panchayat had no concern with the suit land but was threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The Gram Panchayat was also threatening to auction the suit land. Although, the R.S.A. No. 2251 of 2010 (O&M) 2 judgment had been passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade vide order dated 9.4.1987, but the same had not been incorporated in the revenue record. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statements, averred that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the suit land. In fact, the suit land was owned by the Gram Panchayat. The order dated 9.4.1987 had been rendered infructuous in view of the provisions of Village Common Lands Act and hence the said order was not binding on the Gram Panchayat. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court :- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land by virtue of decree dated 9.4.87 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade under section 13-A of the Village Common Land Act ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the revenue entries changed in his favour ? OPP. 3. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit ? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 205 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD. 6. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.2008, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree R.S.A. No. 2251 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Gram Panchayat-appellant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 30.4.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the Gram Panchayat. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The plaintiffs had based reliance on the judgment and decree Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 and order passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Rohtak. Admittedly, vide Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2, it was held that Gram Panchayat was not the owner of the property in dispute. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade vide order dated 9.4.1987 dismissed the petition filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. It was held vide the said order that the suit property did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Relying upon the said documents, both the Courts below had, thus, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 1, 2011 Anand