Gram Panchayat Hassanpur vs Jagdish Chand And Others on 26 November, 2012

[Cites 0, Cited by 4]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gram Panchayat Hassanpur vs Jagdish Chand And Others on 26 November, 2012

Bench: K. Kannan

Civil Revision No.3555 of 2012                    -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                               Date of Decision: November 26, 2012
                               Civil Revision No.3555 of 2012 (O&M)


Gram Panchayat Hassanpur
                                                              ....Petitioner
                                  Versus

Jagdish Chand and others

                                                            ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

Present:     Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate
             for respondent No.1.


                         ***
K. KANNAN, J.(ORAL)

1. The present revision petition is against the dismissal of the application filed at Appellate Court for permanent injunction sought by the petitioner against the respondent from alienating the property during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal was filed on a direction from this Court when previously the petitioner had come in a revision against the rejection of his objection in delivery proceedings. It is matter of record that the petitioner had been originally arrayed as 3rd defendant in a suit when the area committee had been impleaded. The defence was that the property belonged to the area committee but the plaintiff contention was that it was not. The plaintiff did not force an adjudication in the presence of the 3rd defendant, but the 3rd defendant was given up in the suit. Ultimately, therefore a decree for possession was granted in the absence of the 3rd defendant who had been arrayed from the array of parties. Civil Revision No.3555 of 2012 -2-

2. In a case where the objection regarding the entitlement of the property as belonging to the area committee initially and later as belonging to the Panchayat has come to be taken in the absence of the Gram Panchyat, it is only appropriate that the decree holder who had the benefit of execution through delivery of property granted to him pursuant to the decree is retrained from alienating the property. This particularly is relevant in view of the objection taken by the area committee, even at the time of institution of the suit setting up its own interest on the property and the subsequent conduct of the plaintiff in giving up the 3rd defendant. The decree-holder shall be restrained against alienation of the property but it ought not to be taken as prejudicial to the decree-holder, for his own enjoyment pursuant to decree for possession is not jeopardy.

3. The order declining order of injunction is set aside. The order is of the year 2010 and the appellate authority may consider taking of the case as expeditiously as possible. The counsel for the respondent seeks direction for disposal of the appeal within a time frame. I do not think, it is necessary to give any special direction.

4. The revision is disposed of with above directions.




26.11.2012                                                (K. KANNAN)
vcgarg                                                       JUDGE
 Civil Revision No.3555 of 2012   -3-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court