Punjab-Haryana High Court
Des Raj vs Gram Panchayat Sekhupura And Ors on 24 March, 2022
213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-3419-2015 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.03.2022
Des Raj
....Appellant
Versus
Gram Panchayat of Village Sekhupura, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh
Sahib and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr.Rakesh Verma and
Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate for Gram Panchayat
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
The hearing of the case is being held through video
conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.
While assailing the correctness of the findings of fact
arrived at by the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the present
appeal. He alongwith two other persons filed a suit for grant of decree of
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their
possession. During the pendency of the suit, Gram Panchayat was also
added as a party. The Gram Panchayat filed a written statement while
asserting that the suit filed by the plaintiffs under Section 11 of the
Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961, has already been
dismissed by the Court of Collector, Patiala. Thereafter, the Gram
Panchayat has leased out the property to various persons including
Sh.Balbir Singh.
Learned trial court decreed the suit whereas learned First
1 of 3
Appellate Court, after noticing that there is sufficient evidence to prove
that the property is in possession of Balbir Singh, reversed the aforesaid
judgment and decree. It has been noticed that Sant Singh appeared in
evidence as DW1 and produced a copy of the resolution (Ex.D1) dated
08.05.2014 and copies of lease deed as Ex.D2 and Ex.D3. The receipt of
payment of deposit of lease money was also proved.
Learned counsel representing the appellant contends that
their predecessor was recorded to be in possession of the property prior
to 1931. He further contends that the First Appellate Court has erred in
reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
Per contra, learned counsel representing the Gram
Panchayat submits that since the suit filed by the plaintiffs under Section
11 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961, was
dismissed, therefore, the Panchayat took over the possession and started
leasing out the property regularly and therefore, the plaintiffs are not in
possession of the property.
After having heard, the learned counsel representing the
parties at length, this Court is the considered view that there is no
substance in the present appeal. Learned counsel representing the
appellant has failed to controvert the factual position. He has also failed
to controvert that the previous suit instituted by the plaintiff under
Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Land Regulation Act, 1961,
was dismissed. There is evidence available on the file to prove that he
is in possession of the property. Sh. Balbir Singh, had taken the land in
2 of 3
dispute on lease in the year 2009-10. Thereafter, the property is being
leased out on year to year basis. Hence, no ground to interfere with the
findings of fact is made out.
Dismissed.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
24.03.2022 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
