RSA No.464 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 464 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 10, 2009 Jagir Singh and others ...... Appellants Versus Piara Singh and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.R.S.Tacoria, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.A.K.Sharma, Advocate for Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr.Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** 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 concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants for an injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing them except in due course of law. Both the courts found that the appellants had made payment of an amount of Rs. 2 lacs approximately to respondents No. 1 and 2 for possession of about 3 acres of land which stood in the name of the Gram Panchayat. The learned trial court dismissed the suit primarily holding that since the Gram Panchayat was shown as owner of the land in dispute the RSA No.464 of 2007 (O&M) 2 Civil Court would not have the jurisdiction. It may, however, be noted that the Gram Panchayat-respondent No.3 did not contest the suit and was proceeded against ex parte. The learned lower Appellate Court reversed the finding on jurisdiction but maintained the finding that the appellant was not entitled to injunction on the ground that he had become co-sharer with respondents No. 1 and 2. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the trial court was duty bound to return the plaint to the collector for decision on question of title under the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961? ii)Whether the Gair Marusi tenant can be ejected from the land in his possession? The only prayer of the appellants is that their admitted possession over the land should be protected against any illegal attempt to dispossess them. In my opinion in any case respondents No. 1 and 2 would have no right to interfere in the possession of the appellants. With regard to respondent No.3, strangely the Gram Panchayat has chosen to appear before this Court after having ignored the proceedings in the courts below. Learned counsel for the gram Panchayat is not in a position to deny that the appellants are in possession or that they have been recorded as Gair Marusi tenants over the land in dispute. In the circumstances question No. (ii) has to be answered in favour of the appellants to the extent that the respondents cannot illegally dispossess the appellants. Resultantly holding question No. (ii) in favour of the appellants this appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees of the courts below are set aside. The suit filed by the appellants is decreed. No costs. It is, however, clarified that the respondent No.3 would be at liberty RSA No.464 of 2007 (O&M) 3 to take any lawful steps to assert any right or title which they claim in the land in dispute. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 10, 2009 sunita