R.S.A. No. 2179 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2179 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.03.2009 Manohar Singh ....Appellant Versus Gurdeep Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) C.M. No. 2411-C of 2009 This is an application under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of appeal dismissed in default on 21.1.2009. For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number. R.S.A. No. 2179 of 2005 This is defendant/appellant's regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.9.2002 and 31.1.2005 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the R.S.A. No. 2179 of 2005 (O&M) -2- plaintiff/respondents in representative capacity to challenge the judgment and decree passed in favour of the defendant/appellant with consequential relief of handing back possession to the Gram Panchayat, stands decreed. The plaintiffs brought a suit in representative capacity to challenge the consent decree passed in favour of the defendant/appellant on 29.3.1974. The decree was challenged on the plea that the defendant/appellant was never biswedar of village Mohanpur prior to 26.1.1950 and had shifted thereafter to the village, therefore, the Gram Panchayat could not admit his claim to deprive the gram panchayat of shamlat deh. It was claimed that the member panchayat had acted in collusion with defendant No. 1 in admitting the claim. The suit was contested by taking number of preliminary objections. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the decree dated 29.3.1974 was nullity, in view of the averments made in the plaint, which stood proved by evidence on record. As a consequence thereof, declaration was issued holding the gram panchayt to be owner and entitled to possession of the property in dispute. The suit was held to be within limitation, as it was held that the same was filed when the rights of the residents were affected, as the defendant/appellant tried to take possession of the property in dispute. Other issues were decided against the defendant/appellant having been not pressed. R.S.A. No. 2179 of 2005 (O&M) -3- The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law: - "1. Whether plaintiff/respondents had locus standi to challenge the decree?" The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that the plaintiff/respondents had no locus standi to challenge the judgment and decree passsed in favour of the defendant/appellant with the consent of the gram panchayat, admittedly the owner of the land in dispute, being shamlat deh. This plea of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Once it was proved on record that the defendant/appellant has no claim in the suit land, the gram panchayat was not competent to admit the claim of the defendant/appellant. The learned Courts below rightly held that the it was a collusive decree. The learned Courts below also rightly held the plaintiffs being residents of village could challenge the action of gram panchayat in their representative capacity, as the shamlat deh land is to be used for the benefit of all the residents of the village. The substantial question of law raised deserves to be answered against the appellant, as the learned Courts below rightly held that residents had locus standi to challenge the decree. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 10, 2009 R.S.