Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan And Others vs Gram Panchayat Manakwas on 23 May, 2012
Author: L.N. Mittal
Bench: L.N. Mittal
Civil Revision No. 3138 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 3138 of 2012
Date of decision : May 23, 2012
Krishan and others
....Petitioners
versus
Gram Panchayat Manakwas
....Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioners
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Plaintiffs Krishan etc. have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge judgment dated 4.5.2012, Annexure P/1, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani.
Plaintiffs/petitioners filed suit against defendant-respondent Gram Panchayat challenging order dated 20.12.2008 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade in petition under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) filed by Gram Civil Revision No. 3138 of 2012 -2- Panchayat and also appellate order dated 14.9.2010 passed by the Collector. Plaintiffs sought temporary injunction to restrain the defendant Gram Panchayat from demolishing the house of plaintiffs during pendency of the suit on the basis of aforesaid orders passed under the Act.
Defendant - respondent resisted the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction and alleged that plaintiffs have made encroachment on phirni (passage) belonging to Gram Panchayat and defendant is removing said encroachment in accordance with law in execution of orders passed under the Act.
Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri vide order dated 7.2.2011, Annexure P/2 allowed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction. However, appeal against the said order preferred by defendant has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide impugned judgment dated 4.5.2012, Annexure P/1 which is under challenge in the instant revision petition at the instance of plaintiffs.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioners contended that Local Commissioner appointed by Assistant Collector in proceedings under section 7 of the Act reported that no encroachment had been made by the plaintiffs and pursuant thereto, the plaintiffs stopped attending the said proceedings and thereafter Civil Revision No. 3138 of 2012 -3- exparte ejectment order was passed against them which along with appellate order of the Collector is under challenge in the suit. It was contended that no encroachment had been made by the plaintiffs on the phirni vesting in Gram Panchayat.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same cannot be accepted. Jurisdiction of civil court to challenge the aforesaid orders passed in proceedings under section 7 of the Act is prima facie barred by section 13-C of the Act. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs initially appeared in proceedings under section 7 of the Act. If subsequently they did not appear in the said proceedings, they have to blame themselves for the exparte ejectment order passed against them. It would, however, depict that due opportunity of hearing was given to the plaintiffs before passing of ejectment order under section 7 of the Act. Consequently, prima facie jurisdiction of civil court to challenge the said order is barred. Even otherwise, in view of said order, prima facie it cannot be said that there is no encroachment by the plaintiffs on phirni.
In addition to the aforesaid, defendant-respondent is following due process of law and is seeking to remove the encroachment by execution of ejectment order passed under section 7 of the Act. Consequently, no injunction can be granted against the said proceedings being taken by the defendant-respondent in accordance with law. Section 41 of the Specific Civil Revision No. 3138 of 2012 -4- Relief Act, 1963 stipulates that injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding or to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court. Consequently, temporary injunction cannot be granted to restrain defendant-respondent from executing ejectment order passed under section 7 of the Act.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Impugned judgment of the appellate court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is, meritless and is therefore, dismissed. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the suit.
( L.N. Mittal )
May 23, 2012 Judge
'dalbir'