R.S.A.No.2279 of 1989 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No. 2279 of 1989 Date of decision: 22.12.2011. Gram Sabha (Gram Panchayat) ...Appellant Versus Karnail Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA. Present: Mr. Arvind Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. ***** G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. 1. The present appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the Courts below in a suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent no.1. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendants should be restrained from forcibly dispossessing him from the suit land measuring 6 kanals 18 marlas of the land situated in revenue limits of village Phulluwala Dogra over which the plaintiff had built his house. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that in earlier civil suit No.369 dated 13.12.1979 a decree dated 30.5.1980 had been passed in his favour and now the Sarpanch was threatening to dispossess him. The suit was contested by the Panchayat and Gram Sabha defendants No.2 and 4 on the ground that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the dispute R.S.A.No.2279 of 1989 -2- **** would be covered under the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit land. The defendant-Gram Panchayat had moved an application before the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Bathinda and an ejectment order had been passed on 26.3.1985. The following issues were framed by the Trial Court. “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek relief of injunction as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit?OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false and vexatious to his knowledge and defendants are entitled to claim special costs? 4. Relief” 3. After examining the evidence of the plaintiff, who tendered into evidence copy of judgment dated 30.5.1980 (Ex.P1) and the decree Ex. P2 and the evidence of the defendants, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the Civil Court had jurisdiction wherein legality of any action taken by the authorities under the Act was challenged and since in the present case the land belonged to the plaintiff. It was also noticed that in the earlier litigation the plaintiff had been declared as owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession and the Gram Panchayat has not taken any pains to a file any appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.5.1980 and, therefore, the lis between the parties had become final. Accordingly, the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land was decreed. 4. The appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat has been dismissed R.S.A.No.2279 of 1989 -3- **** on the ground that after five years of the judgment and decree in the earlier proceedings, an order of ejectment had been passed and that no plea had been taken in the earlier suit that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and the judgment Ex. P1 and decree Ex. P2 was valid and binding upon both the parties. The ownership of the plaintiff having been finalised being owner by way of adverse possession, the authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved against the same, the Gram Panchayat is in Regular Second Appeal. A perusal of the earlier litigation goes to show that the plaintiff has specifically alleged that he was owner in possession of the suit land and had constructed a house which consisted of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. The Gram Panchayat in the written statement filed in the earlier litigation had no-where raised the issue of jurisdiction and accordingly, the Court had held that the plaintiff had levelled and spent the amount on construction and was in forcible possession from the last 18-20 years and that Panchayat had not taken any action to get the possession from the plaintiff and accordingly had declared the plaintiff to be owner by way of adverse possession of site Khasra No.158 (6-18) Khatoni No.487 and Khewat No.293 in village Phulluwala Dogra. Once the issue has been finalised between the parties and the plaintiff had been held to be owner in possession on account of his hostile and adverse possession, the subsequent proceedings under the Act would be without jurisdiction and the order of ejectment, therefore, cannot be put to any benefit and could not be executed and accordingly, the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff is entitled for injunction in view of the fact that the issue of ownership had conclusively been decided between the parties. In such circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for consideration R.S.A.No.2279 of 1989 -4- **** before this Court since Gram Panchayat had omitted to take this plea of lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the earlier litigation and it is deemed that it has given up the said plea and now this issue cannot be raised in a subsequent litigation. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. December 22, 2011 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) Pka JUDGE R.S.A.No.2279 of 1989 -5- ****