RSA No. 607 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 607 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 22 , 2009 Gram Panchayat of vilalge Rampura Tehsil Pataudi District Gurgaon through its Sarpanch ...........Appellant Versus Zile Singh ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Vijay S.Kajla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.I.K.Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr.M.P.Kohli, Advocate for the respondent ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Zile Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 29.4.2006. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “ 2. Let us first have a look at the allegations of the plaintiff RSA No. 607 of 2008 (O&M) 2 contained in the plaint:- The plaintiff was co-owner to the extent of his share in the land measuring 206 kanals 12 marlas comprised in Khewat No.627, Rect No.6, Kila No.25/1 (8-14), Rect. No. 18 Killa No.6/6/6 (1-7), situatee within the revenue estate of village Rampur, Tehsil Pataudi, District Gurgaon (hereinafter to be referred as the suit property) as per jamabandi for the year 1998-99. The defendant had got no right, title or interest in the suit land measuring 10 kanals 1 marla. The defendant was neither the owner nor co- sharer in the entire land of khewat No. 565. The other co-sharers were in separate possession according to their shares as per private partition amongst the co-sharers. The suit land had never vested in gram panchayat. The defendant being the Sarpanch of the village was having man power and he was taking undue advantage of his being Sarpanch of the village. The defendant was bent upon to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly from the suit land. With these allegations, the plaintiff sought a decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land or dispossessing him from the suit land. 3. The defendant-Gram Panchayat contested the suit and filed written statement in which preliminary objections about maintainability, jurisdiction concealment of material facts, want of notice under Section 205 of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, locus standi, non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel, lis pendis and the dispute having been decided already by the Court of RSA No. 607 of 2008 (O&M) 3 Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Gurgaon vide order dated 25.10.1994 were taken. On merits, it was denied that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land. It was pleaded that the suit land was owned and possessed by the defendant. It was further pleaded that the entire land was reserved for use of common purposes and the gram panchayat was authorised to use the land for the benefit of village community. It was further pleaded that the suit land was owned by Shamlat Patti Rampur and after the commencement of shamlat law the suit land vested in the gram panchayat as it was covered under the definition of shamlat deh. It was pleaded that plaintiff and other co-sharers had no right or title in the suit land. It was further pleaded that the defendant-gram panchayat was not a party in the alleged private partition suit. The defendant further alleged that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade had rightly ejected the person from whom the plaintiff had purchased the suit land vide order dated 25.10.1994 and had imposed a penalty of Rs.7500/- and the said order had become final between the parties and the defendant-gram panchayat was taking possession in due course of law. Refuting the allegations of the plaintiff, the defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is co-owner to the extent of his share of the suit land mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint?OPP 2.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD RSA No. 607 of 2008 (O&M) 4 3.Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit?OPD 4.Whether the plaintiff has concealed true and material facts from this court, if so to what effect?OPD 5.Whether the suit is bad for want of notice u/s 205 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ?OPD 6.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 7.Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 8.Whether the suit is barred by the principle of lis-pendis?OPD 9. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendant be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession. As per the revenue record, plaintiff was described to be in exclusive possession of the suit land on the basis of the sale deed. The case of the Gram Panchayat -appellant was that, in fact, Gram Panchayat was owner in possession of the suit land and an order dated 25.10.1994 had already been passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade for ejectment of the predecessors in interest of the plaintiff. However, the said order was not proved on record by the Gram Panchayat. Gram Panchayat failed to lead any evidence in support of its case. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the plaintiff could not be dispossessed from the suit land except in due course RSA No. 607 of 2008 (O&M) 5 of law. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge December 22, 2009 arya