Punjab-Haryana High Court
Banarsi Dass And Another vs Gram Panchayat And Others on 13 August, 2012
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
Civil Revision No. 4661 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No. 4661 of 2012
Date of decision:- 13.08.2012
Banarsi Dass and another
....Petitioners
Vs.
Gram Panchayat and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
******
Present:- Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate,
for of the petitioners.
A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL)
This petition assails the order dated 01.08.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, at Jagadhri, accepting the appeal filed by defendant No.3- respondent No.1 Gram Panchayat and setting aside the order dated 14.06.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar, at Jagadhri, allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners (hereinafter referred as 'the petitioners') under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
The petitioners filed a suit in a representative capacity, claiming that they are the proprietors of village Sadhaura and as such, they are co-sharers in the land measuring 154 Kanals-5 Marlas, detailed in the heading of the plaint. As per revenue record, the land in dispute is recorded as 'Shamlat Patti Saniyan Hasab Rasad Araji Khewat' and the petitioners being proprietors, were in possession thereof. It was further pleaded that the said Civil Revision No. 4661 of 2012 2 land has been used by the proprietors of the village as pond for providing water to their cattle and plants. They had also planted 'Singara' and 'Bheensa' crops in this pond. Previously, there was a Municipal Committee at Sadhaura and mutation of the land in dispute was sanctioned in favour of the said Municipal Committee vide mutation No.5531 dated 25.12.1976 without any notice to the proprietors, whereupon they had filed a civil suit against the Municipal Committee, which was decreed on 02.02.1983 and the proprietors of village Sadhaura i.e. 'Patti Sainian' was declared to be owner in possession of the said property. Now Municipal Committee has been substituted again by the Gram Panchayat. On being threatened by the Gram Panchayat to interfere in the possession of the proprietors, the present suit was filed. Along with the suit, an application for ad-interim injunction was filed, which was also contested by the defendants-respondents. Besides raising other preliminary objections, it has been submitted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit; the consolidation proceedings had taken place in village Sadhaura in the year 1966 and at that time the disputed land was reserved for 'johar' i.e. meant for common purpose of the whole of the village community and as such, it had fallen within the definition of 'shamlat deh'. It was also alleged that the suit was bad for want of notice under Sections 204 and 205 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
While sitting over the said application, the trial Court allowed the same and granted injunction in favour of the petitioners. But, the first Appellate Court accepted the appeal Civil Revision No. 4661 of 2012 3 filed by the Gram Panchayat and dismissed the injunction application of the petitioners.
Much stress has been laid by the petitioners over the judgment and decree dated 02.02.1983. The declaration made by the Court vide that judgment and decree dated 02.02.1983 was without jurisdiction, as the land had already been vested in the Municipal Committee and thereafter, it was vested in the Gram Panchayat. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate the question, as to whether the property vests in the Gram Panchayat or not, is barred by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation), Act, therefore, the Civil Court could not go into such question. Consequently, the decree, if any, passed by the Civil Court, is a nullity.
As regard the question, "whether the land vests in the Gram Panchayat or the proprietors", no document has been placed on record that the petitioners and other persons are the proprietors of the village. The petitioners did not produce any material on the record to show that they were growing any 'Singara' and 'Bheensa' crops over the land. Moreover, as per the revenue record, the land is shown as 'gair mumkin talaab' and in the column of ownership, the land is recorded as 'Shamlat Patti Sainian Hasab Rasad Araji Khewat. All this goes to show that the land in dispute was used by the villagers for common purposes and it was never cultivated by any of the proprietors of the village.
Before parting with the judgment, it may be mentioned that the Panchayat lands being used for the common purpose, cannot be misused or given in the hands of certain class of people Civil Revision No. 4661 of 2012 4 for misappropriating the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has fallen heavily upon the authorities and the land grabbers, usurping such land by using illegal means. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case Jagpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2011 (1) ICC 742, has observed as under:-
"22. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officer of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. Where lease has been granted under some Government notification to land less labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land."
Consequently, it would have to be held that the petitioners have no prima facie case in their favour for grant of injunction.
Resultantly, this petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.
(A.N.JINDAL)
August 13, 2012 JUDGE
ajp