Civil Revision No. 4340 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4340 of 2011 Date of Decision: 28.7.2011 *** Munshi & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Gram Panchayat & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Ravinder Singh Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Both the Courts below have refused to grant ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs. Heard. It is apparent from the records that the plaintiffs filed the suit in representative capacity alleging that the suit land is owned and possessed by the proprietors of the village including them and they used the same for staying their cattles thereupon since the time of their ancestors. The defendants, who have no authority or right, wants to interfere in their possession by raising construction thereupon. However, the perusal of the order passed by the appellate Court below reveals that the suit land was found vested with the Gram Panchayat. The said findings are descernible from the perusal of para No.9 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:- “9. After considering the arguments of both the sides and going through the case file, it is clear that the land comprised in khasra No.39 of which the suit land is part, was reserved as “Besak Mavesiyan” as is clear from the copy of scheme Istemal Arazi Mouza Ratauli dated 20.8.1961, therefore, the same stood vested in the Gram Panchayat in view of the observations made in Jai Singh Civil Revision No. 4340 of 2011 2 & Ors.' case (supra) wherein it has been held that all such lands, which have been, as per the consolidation scheme, reserved for common purposes, whether utilised or not, shall vest with the State Government or the Gram Panchayat, as the case may be, even though in the column of ownership, the entries may be 'Jumla Mustarka Malkaans Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat” etc. So, if the mutation No. 1629 sanctioned in favour of the proprietors of village Ratauli and in pursuance thereof, the entries in jamabandi, the names of proprietors of the village in the column of ownership, the same have no meaning. Thus, the proprietors of the village cannot claim any right over the suit land.” In view of the observations above, it cannot be said that the Courts below have wrongly declined the relief of interim injunction to the plaintiffs. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 28, 2011 Jiten