Regular Second Appeal No.2547 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2547 of 2009 Date of decision: 15th July, 2009 Guraditta Singh ......Appellant Versus Gram Panchayat ......Respondent Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. J.S.Brar, Advocate for the appellant. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees dated 2.01.2007 and 19.02.2009, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Muktsar and the Additional District Judge, Muktsar, dismissing his suit and his appeal. The appellant filed a suit for declaration, claiming ownership of the suit property by alleging that the revenue entry in the Jamabandi, reflecting the Gram Panchayat as owner, in possession of the suit land is null and void. It was alleged that the land described as “Shamlat Patti Jawahar Singh”, was purchased by him from Puran Singh, Bhajan Singh and Amrik Singh, co-sharers of the Patti, vide registered sale deed, dated 9.04.1973. In addition, the appellant prayed for grant of an Regular Second Appeal No.2547 of 2009 2 injunction to protect his possession. The Gram Panchayat did not put in appearance and was proceeded against ex parte. After considering the ex parte evidence, adduced by the appellant, the trial court dismissed the suit by holding that the appellant had failed to prove that his vendors had any authority to sell the land. It was also held that as the Gram Panchayat was recorded as owner in possession of the suit land no injunction could be granted to the appellant. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Muktsar vide order dated 19.02.2009, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. Counsel for the appellant submits that the suit land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The land is described as “Shamlat Patti Jawahar Singh” in the Jamabandi for the year 1971-1972. The appellant has purchased this property, from co- sharers of the Patti. The learned courts below therefore, had no jurisdiction to rely upon an uncorroborated entry in the revenue record reflecting the Gram Pachayat as owner in possession to hold that the gram panchayat is owner in possession of the suit land. It is argued that the question of title apart, as the appellant is in possession of suit land, the courts below should have at least granted an injunction, protecting the appellant's possession. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and upon due consideration of the arguments addressed, express my inability to acceed to the Regular Second Appeal No.2547 of 2009 3 arguments advanced by counsel for the appellant or hold that the substantial questions of law framed by counsel for the appellant arise for consideration. Counsel for the appellant has framed the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees which are based upon misreading and non-reading of Ex.P2(Jamabandi), Ex.P8 to Ex.P13 (entries in khasra girdawari) Ex.P14 (rapat roznamcha) i.e. the material evidence are sustainable? 2. Whether the Ld. Courts below have misread the pleadings of the appellant to return a finding with regard to the rights and interests of the appellant and his predecessors in interest? 3. Whether the findings recorded by the Ld. Courts below can be held to be perverse and as such not sustainable? 4. Whether the reasons given by the Courts below are not flimsy and as such it itself is not a substantial question of law to call for the interference of this Hon’ble Court?” As per Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regular Second Appeal No.2547 of 2009 4 (Regulation) Act 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act), any person claiming right, title or interest in any land “vested” or “deemed to have been vested” in a Panchayat or to have not so vested is required to file an application before a Collector for adjudication of his claim. Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat is reflected as owner in possession, in the revenue record. Consequently, the courts below did not commit any error in holding, that the appellant could not claim ownership on the basis of a sale deed executed by co-sharers of the original “patti”. The submissions made by counsel for the appellant that as the Khasra Girdwari, records the appellant in possession, the courts below should have granted an injunction cannot be accepted. The Gram Panchayat is recorded as owner in possession and as the suit was not maintainable the appellant would be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority under the Act. In so far as the questions of law framed by counsel for the appellant suffice is to say that the impugned judgments do not disclose a misreading of the Jamabandi or the pleadings and neither are the conclusions recorded by the courts below are in no manner perverse. Appeal is dismissed. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 15th July, 2009 SKaushik