Punjab-Haryana High Court
Davender And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 27 August, 2013
R.S.A. No. 3249 of 2013 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 3249 of 2013 [O&M].
Date of Decision: August 27th, 2013
Davender and another
.... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and another. .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Sandeep Goyat, Advocate,
for the Caveator-respondent No.2.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
This is plaintiffs' regular second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees passed by learned Civil Judge [Junior Division] Hansi dated 8.5.2010 and learned Additional District Judge, Hisar dated 18.2.2013. Plaintiffs claim themselves to be owners in possession of a plot shown in red colour with letters ABCD in the site plan appended with the plaint. They have brought the suit for declaration to the effect that the orders passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hansi dated 5.2.2001, by Collector, Hisar dated 31.10.2001, by Commissioner dated 28.8.2008 and by Financial Commissioner dated 14.11.2008 to be illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction, having no sanctity in the eyes of law. They have further sought declaration to the effect that they are Prakash Som 2013.09.03 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document R.S.A. No. 3249 of 2013 2 ..
owners in possession of the suit plot and sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession over the suit plot. They have claimed that Gyani Ram, respondent had filed an application before Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hansi for the ejectment of the plaintiffs from the suit plot. Gyani Ram did not implead Gram Panchayat in his application. Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hansi took the view that the matter was a civil dispute and Gyani Ram should knock the doors of civil court and, consequently, rejected the application. However, thereafter in appeal, the matter was remitted back and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hansi then decided the application against the plaintiffs-appellants. The orders are claimed to be void because question of title was involved in the matter and the revenue authorities were not having any jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application.
Defendant No.2 resisted the suit while defendant No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte. The orders of the revenue courts are claimed to be legal. Various preliminary objections have been taken and it is claimed that the plaintiffs are in unauthorized possession of a common chowk on which by filing the suit, they are perpetuating their possession. They are claimed to be trespassers and not entitled to any kind of injunction. They are denied to be owners of the property and it is claimed that the plaintiffs are liable to be ejected in execution of the legal orders passed by the revenue courts.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by learned trial court.
"1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for declaration as prayed for? OPP Prakash Som 2013.09.03 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document R.S.A. No. 3249 of 2013 3 ..
2 If issue No.1 is proved whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
4. Whether the suit is barred by section 11 of CPC?OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by his own act and conduct? OPD
6. Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD
7. Relief."
Taking evidence of the parties, learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs with no order as to costs. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs also failed before learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 18.2.2013.
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the eviction application was filed by Gyani Ram and not by Gram Panchayat. According to him, the application under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands [Regulations] Act, 1961 [for short, "the Act"] should have been filed by the Gram Panchayat. According to him, Gyani Ram did not even implead the Gram Panchayat as a party to the application. According to him, the question of title was involved in the application and the revenue courts should have withheld their hands and should have asked the parties to approach the civil court for getting the question of title decided.
There is nothing on the record or argued by learned counsel for the appellants to show as to how the question of title would be involved in this case. Mere saying that the occupier of shamilat deh land is owner thereof would not raise a question of title in the proceedings brought for ejectment of an unauthorized occupant of the shamilat deh. Prakash Som 2013.09.03 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document R.S.A. No. 3249 of 2013 4
..
Section 7 of the Act lays down that an Assistant Collector Ist Grade having jurisdiction in the village may, either suo motu or on an application made to him by Panchayat or any inhabitant of the village, after making such summary enquiry as he may deem fit, eject any person who is in wrongful or unauthorized possession of the land or other immovable property in the shamilat deh of that village which vests or is deemed to have vested in the Panchayat. The language of this section is quite clear which provides for an inhabitant of the village to bring the proceedings under section 7 of the Act for ejectment of an unauthorized occupant of shamilat deh land. The language of this section does not make it necessary to implead the Gram Panchayat in a proceeding brought under this section.
It seems that after losing the battle before the revenue authorities, the plaintiffs, in order to perpetuate their possession, have filed the civil suit and have so far been able to remain in possession of the suit land in the face of there being an ejectment order against them.
In view of the above, I find no substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. Moreover, no questions of law much less substantial questions of law appear to be arising in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed in limine.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE August 27th, 2013 som Prakash Som 2013.09.03 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document