Civil Revision No.1278 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1278 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: April 19, 2011 Major Singh .....Petitioner v. Gram Panchayat Dera Mir Miran and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Mukesh Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for the respondents. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 24.10.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, Annexure P1, vide which appeal filed by respondent no.1-defendant no.1-Gram Panchayat was accepted and the order passed by learned trial Court accepting application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as `the Code') filed by petitioner-plaintiff no.2 was set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned courts below. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that present petitioner-plaintiff no.2 alongwith pro forma respondent no.2- plaintiff no.1 filed suit for permanent injunction restraining respondent no.1-defendant no.1-Gram Panchayat from interfering in their alleged possession over the plot in dispute bearing khasra no.38//10(0-4), described in the heading of the plaint, on the plea that they had purchased the same from Gurcharan Singh son of Waryan Singh, vide sale deed dated 30.6.2005 and obtained the possession of the same. Civil Revision No.1278 of 2010(O&M) -2- Gram Panchayat contested the suit briefly on the ground that it is owner of the suit property and that the same has been reserved for Gair Mumkin School at the time of consolidation holdings. It is further contended that as per resolution of Gram Panchayat, the land was allotted to landless persons of the village so that they could construct their houses within stipulated period and, however, alleged allottees could not sell the plot to anybody. Further plea has been taken that Gurcharan Singh was allotted the property in dispute by Gram Panchayat and, however, he had not constructed the house as per terms of the allotment and that he has not been residing in the village and, hence, Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, Fatehgarh Sahib, which was allowed and allotment of plot in favour of Gurcharan Singh was cancelled vide order of Collector dated 21.2.2006 and the mutation was again sanctioned in favour of Gram Panchayat and, hence now Gram Panchayat is owner in possession of the same. Hence, admitted facts are that the land in dispute was owned by Gram Panchayat and, however, as per resolution of Gram Panchayat, the same was allotted to Gurcharan Singh. Allotment in favour of Gurcharan Singh was cancelled by Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib, on the petition of Gram Panchayat, vide order dated 21.2.2006. Petitioner-plaintiffs is claiming right over the land in dispute through Gurcharan Singh on the ground that they had purchased the same from him on 30.6.2005 and, however, when allotment in favour of Gurcharan Singh has since been cancelled, present petitioner is having no right over the property in dispute, as he had purchased the same during pendency of the proceedings for cancellation of allotment of Gurcharan Singh before the Collector. Hence, in view of these facts, prima facie case is not in favour of petitioner-plaintiff, balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour and no irreparable loss would be caused to him, if ad interim injunction order is not granted to him. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned District Judge, in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Civil Revision No.1278 of 2010(O&M) -3- Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 19.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No.