Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gram Panchayat Bhari Mansa vs Harmail Singh And Another on 20 November, 2012
Author: L.N. Mittal
Bench: L.N. Mittal
Regular Second Appeal No. 1324 of 2012(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 1324 of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision : November 20, 2012
Gram Panchayat Bhari Mansa
....Appellant
versus
Harmail Singh and another
....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Ms Naiya Gill, Advocate, for the appellant
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
CM No. 3538.C of 2012 Heard.
For reasons mentioned in the application accompanied by affidavit, defendant no. 1 Gram Panchayat is permitted to file second appeal through its present Sarpanch Mukhtiar Singh without necessary resolution of the Gram Panchayat, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands allowed accordingly.
CM No. 3539.C of 2012 For the reasons mentioned in this application which is Regular Second Appeal No. 1324 of 2012(O&M) -2- accompanied by affidavit, delay of 5 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly.
CM No. 3540.C of 2012 Allowed as prayed for.
RSA No. 1324 of 2012 Defendant no. 1-Gram Panchayat having lost in both the courts below has filed this second appeal.
Respondents/plaintiffs Harmail Singh and Bharpur Singh filed suit against defendant no. 1/appellant and its then Sarpanch Maghar Singh defendant no. 2 (not party in first appeal or in instant second appeal). Plaintiffs alleged that Hadda Rori exists in khasra no. 3 (1-19) whereas cremation ground exists in the adjoining land of khasra no. 2(0-13), but the defendants threatened to shift the Hadda Rori from its existing place to khasra no. 2 without any justification. On the other hand, Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BDPO) has already directed defendant no. 1 to shift Hadda Rori to khasra no. 492. The plaintiffs accordingly sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from illegally, forcibly and without due course of law shifting Hadda Rori from land of khasra no. 3 to land of khasra no. 2 and from using the land of khasra no. 2 for removing skin of the dead animals.
Defendants contested the suit and broadly controverted the Regular Second Appeal No. 1324 of 2012(O&M) -3- plaint averments and pleaded that Hadda Rori exists in land of khasra no. 2. It was denied that Hadda Rori exists in land of khasra no. 3. It was pleaded that litigation is pending regarding land of khasra no. 492.
Both the courts below have decreed suit of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved, Gram Panchayat has filed this second appeal.
I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that land of khasra no. 2 was reserved for Hadda Rori in consolidation of holdings and therefore, defendant no. 1 has right to use the same for the said purpose. The contention cannot be accepted being completely beyond pleadings and not supported by any material on record. No such plea has even taken in the written statement by the defendants that land of khasra no. 2 was reserved for Hadda Rori in consolidation of holdings nor there is even an iota of evidence on record to depict the same.
On the other hand, there is ample oral and documentary evidence to depict that Hadda Rori actually exists in land of khasra no. 3 and not in land of khasra no. 2. There is oral evidence of the plaintiffs in this regard. There is also documentary evidence in the form of revenue record to the same effect. Even defendant no. 1-Gram Panchayat passed resolution dated 3.11.1997 for shifting of Hadda Rori from land of khasra no. 3 to land of khasra no. 492. Thus, the resolution passed by defendant Regular Second Appeal No. 1324 of 2012(O&M) -4- no. 1/appellant itself reveals that Hadda Rori exists in land of khasra no. 3 and not in land of khasra no. 2. BDPO has also written letter to the then Sarpanch defendant no. 2 for shifting Hadda Rori from land of khasra no. 3 to land of khasra no. 492 . It again depicts that Hadda Rori exists in land of khasra no. 3 and not in land of khasra no. 2.
In view of the aforesaid overwhelming oral and documentary evidence, there is no escape from the conclusion that Hadda Rori exists in land of khasra no. 3 as pleaded by the plaintiffs and not in land of khasra no. 2 as pleaded by the defendants. Both the courts below have, therefore, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Concurrent finding recorded by both the lower courts in this regard is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misrepresentation of evidence on record. On the contrary, no other finding could reasonably be arrived at on appreciation of the evidence as discussed by the courts below. There is, therefore, no ground to interfere with the aforesaid finding. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
( L.N. Mittal )
November 20, 2012 Judge
'dalbir'