RSA No. 3778 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3778 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 27, 2009 Gram Panchayat, Kait ...... Appellant Versus Jahur Hassan and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Karan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court allowing the appeal of the respondents and thereby decreeing their suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from leasing out the suit land. Learned Lower Appellate Court held that the suit land had been declared to be not Shamilat deh by this court by a judgment Ex.P3. Further the lower Appellate Court relied upon the mutations No. 494 and 496 whereby the land in dispute was mutated from the name of the Panchayat to the name of the proprietors including the respondents. The following questions have been proposed:- RSA No. 3778 of 2009 (O&M) 2 i) Whether the appellant-Gram Panchayat is the owner in possession of the land as per the Revenue record and leasing out the land to the highest bidders from year to year? ii)Whether the land in question has been left out during the consolidation for common purposes and the same is being used for common purposes? iii)Whether the respondents/plaintiffs has no interest or title in the land in dispute? iv)Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? v) Whether the learned First Appellate Court has recorded the perverse findings on the basis of evidence on record of the case? vi)Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court is illegal and arbitrary and the same is liable yo be set aside by this Hon'ble Court by upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court? Questions No. (i) and (ii) have to be held against the appellant since they are not res integra as it has been admittedly held by this court in Ex.P3 that the land in dispute does not vest in the appellant. As regards question Nos. (iii), (iv) and (vi) it may be noticed that the present was merely a suit for injunction and not a title suit. Apart from that once the land in dispute was held to be not Shamilat deh, the civil court would obviously have the jurisdiction. On the question of entitlement of the respondents to get the injunction, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings of fact recorded by the learned lower Appellate Court with regard to the established possession of the respondents cannot be held to be based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. In this view of the matter even question No. (v) has to be RSA No. 3778 of 2009 (O&M) 3 decided against the appellant. Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 27, 2009 sunita