R.S.A. No.4235 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.4235 of 2009 Date of Decision:22.07.2011 Gram Panchayat, Ponti and another ......Appellants Versus Ajmer Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Jagram Singh Cooner, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. Respondent No.4 ex parte. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record, is that Ajmer Singh and others-respondent-plaintiffs(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) claiming themselves to be the residents of village, filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining BDO-proforma respondent No.1- defendant No.1, Gram Panchayat Ponti, its Sarpanch-appellants-defendant Nos.2 and 3 and State of Haryana-proforma respondent No.8-defendant No.4(for brevity “the defendants”), from trespassing and raising any kind of construction on the land of Mandir and Gugga Mari, comprising in Khasra No.67, measuring 1 Kanal, situated in village Ponti, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala, inter alia, pleading that the land in dispute measuring 1 Kanal belongs to Mandir of Lord Shiva and Gugga Mari and a boundary wall was constructed around it five/six years ago. The villagers/devotees are worshipping in the Gugga Mari and Mandir, but Sarpanch of the village threatened that he will not allow them, to worship in the Mandir/Gugga R.S.A. No.4235 of 2009 2 Mari. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants tried to dig foundation at the spot on the land of Mandir, without any legal right. 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. 2. The defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, objection under Section 80 CPC, jurisdiction of the civil court, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiffs. According to the defendants, the suit property is owned and possessed by the Gram Panchayat of the village and it intends to construct the building of Anganwari on it, in the wake of grant by the Government. The building of the Anganwari Centre is to be used by the villagers and the Gram Panchayat was stated to be fully competent to give the land for construction of Anganwari. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiffs filed the replication. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the essential issues, depicted in its judgment, for proper adjudication of the case. 4. The parties to the lis in order to substantiate their respective pleas, brought on record oral as well as the documentary evidence. 5. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 15.01.2008. 6. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed the appeal, which was accepted by the first Appellate Court by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 27.07.2009. 7. Appellant-defendants Gram Panchayat and its Sarpanch, did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court and R.S.A. No.4235 of 2009 3 preferred the present regular second appeal. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this respect. 9. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the Gram Panchayat is owner and in possession of the disputed property, so, the first Appellate Court fell in legal error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, lacks merit. 10. As is evident from the record that, no doubt the disputed property, comprising of Khasra No.67, measuring 1 kanal, is described as “shamlat” in the Jamabandis Exhibits PA and PB, but in the column of possession, Gair mumkin Temple has been mentioned. Meaning thereby, the disputed land was reserved for Gugga Mari temple, which is in its possession and the people/devotees are worshipping in it. 11. Above being the position on record, to me, such land being used as a place of worship, or for the purpose of subservient thereto, will be excluded from the definition of “shamlat deh”, as contemplated under Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands(Regulation) Act, 1961. Moreover, the Gugga Mari and Lord Shiva Temple are meant for religious worship of all the devotees of the village and the defendants cannot legally be permitted to encroach upon the land of Lord Shiva Temple and Gugga Mari in this relevant connection. 12. Above all, the first Appellate Court, having scanned the admissible evidence brought on record in the right perspective, has recorded a finding of fact that the Gram Panchayat cannot change the nature of property in dispute and negatived the claim of the defendant-Gram Panchayat, through the medium of impugned judgment and decree dated 27.07.2009. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant did not point out, how and in what manner, the impugned judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court, is illegal R.S.A. No.4235 of 2009 4 or perverse, so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, as envisaged under Section 100 CPC. 14. Neither any question of law, much less substantial, is involved in this regular second appeal, nor any other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 15. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. July 22, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE