Punjab-Haryana High Court
Malkiat Singh vs Gram Panchayat Bains & Anr on 22 August, 2014
CR No.3368 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.3368 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided on:-22.8.2014.
Malkiat Singh. .........Petitioner.
Versus
Gram Panchayat village Bains & another .........Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON.
*****
Argued by:- Mr. Vikas Bahl, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arjun Kundra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.
In a suit seeking declaration of ownership, a decree of permanent injunction is also sought against the Gram Panchayat against dispossession. The application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking ad interim injunction, was declined by the lower court on 28.5.2013. The appellate court also finding no merit in the case of the plaintiff, affirming the order of the lower court, had dismissed the appeal on 18.4.2014.
2. These two orders are under challenge by the petitioner-plaintiff in this revision petition which has been filed by him by invoking supervistory powers of this Court exercisable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India claiming therein that even though prima-facie case is in his favour and he is to suffer irreparable loss and injury as construction has been raised by him on the site, balance of convenience thus also lies in his favour, yet application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was wrongly dismissed by both the courts. It is also claimed that refusal of confirmation of sale of Gram Panchayat land in his favour by the competent authority is YAG DUTT 2014.08.29 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.3368 of 2014 -2- also wrong and illegal.
3. Hearing has been provided.
4. During the course of arguments addressed by the counsel for the petitioner, he has not been able to point out any mistake in the concurrent findings of both the courts below whereby neither finding a prima-facie case nor balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff, his application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, was dismissed.
5. It is a conceded case that the land in suit belongs to the respondent Gram Panchayat. Construction was raised by the petitioner- plaintiff arrogating to himself the position of an owner, whereas he was not. It is, thus, a clear case of trespasser. Eviction order has already been passed against him by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Nawanshahar.
6. Revenue record reveals that the land owned by the Gram Panchayat was in the nature of a pathway which was left in the revenue record to be used by the general public. Merely because pursuant to a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat for sale of such land, the petitioner-plaintiff had managed sale of the public pathway to him by local influence, does not disclose existence of a prima-facie case in his favour, when the competent authority had rightly rejected case of the petitioner- plaintiff of sale of the land to him.
7. Plea of the petitioner-plaintiff that he had spent huge amount on construction of his house on the land, does not provide him any solace because firstly the petitioner-plaintiff raised construction on the pathway which is left for use of the general public and then managed sale of the same on 12.9.2007 to himself pursuant to a resolution passed by the Gram YAG DUTT 2014.08.29 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.3368 of 2014 -3- Panchayat which sale was not approved by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue as the resolution authorising the Gram Panchayat to sell the property in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff itself had been cancelled by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue.
8. The respondents-defendants are taking possession of the suit land following due process of law in the execution of order dated 17.3.2007 passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Nawanshahar.
9. Looking from another angle, the petitioner-plaintiff did not approach the civil court with clean hands. He nowhere disclosed in his pleadings that eviction order had already been passed on 17.3.2007 by the competent authority and possession was being taken in pursuance thereto. Thus, the petitioner had also not approached the lower court with clean hands and thus, was rightly held to be not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction.
10. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the courts below. Consequently, affirming the same, this petition being without any merit, is dismissed.
11. Nothing observed hereinabove shall have any bearing on merits of the suit pending before the lower court.
(Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon)
August 22, 2014 Judge
'Yag Dutt'
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes YAG DUTT 2014.08.29 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document