Punjab-Haryana High Court
Partap Singh And Others vs Gram Panchayat Of Village Bundala And ... on 3 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062217
2024:PHHC:062217 RSA-4833-2019 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-4833-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-02.05.2024
Partap Singh and Others
... Appellants
Versus
Gram Panchayat and Others
... Respondents
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
-.-
Argued by :- Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate
for the appellants.
-.-
RITU TAGORE, J.
CM-13783-C-2019
1. Heard on the application, for condonation of delay of 59 days in
refiling the appeal.
2. Based on the reasons outlined in the application, supported by
an affidavit of Satnam Singh, one of the plaintiffs, the application is allowed
and delay of 59 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
RSA-4833-2019 (O&M)
1. Appellants/plaintiffs and proforma respondents No.2 to 4, have
been non-suited by learned Courts below, preferring this Regular Second
Appeal.
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062217
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as
per their status before the learned trial Court.
3. The relevant facts for adjudicating the present appeal are that
plaintiffs instituted a civil suit bearing No.3205 of 2015 titled as Partap and
others vs Gram Panchayat, Bundala against the defendant-Gram Panchayat
of village Bundala, claiming to be declared as owners in possession of land
measuring 90 kanals 13 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village
Bundala (the suit land), as detailed in the head note of the plaint and
mentioned in Jamabandi for the year 2010-11, and correction of the revenue
record in their names as owners, alongwith the relief of permanent
injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering into their peaceful
possession in respect of the suit land, in any manner whatsoever.
4. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit land was purchased by them from
previous owners after due verification of the revenue record vide registered
sale deeds dated 03.07.1980, 07.06.1979, 07.06.1977, 07.02.1977 and
06.06.1977 for valuable consideration. The predecessors-in-interest of their
vendors were recorded as owners in possession of the suit land much prior to
commencement of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,
1961. The plaintiffs claimed that they obtained physical possession of the
suit land from their vendors and since then they have been in cultivating
possession of the suit land as owners.
5. The plaintiffs further pleaded that suit land was cultivated by their
vendors for their personal use and benefits. It was neither used for common
purposes and benefits of the village, nor it was ever allotted or reserved for
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062217
common purposes. The defendant never enjoyed the possession of the suit
land. The revenue authorities illegally entered the name of the defendant in
the revenue record (Jamabandi), without any basis. Therefore, said entries
are void ab initio and not binding on them. The names of the plaintiffs and
their predecessor-in-interest are shown in column No.5 of Jamabandi entries.
They have been in continuous possession of the suit land and requested the
defendant to admit their claim, but the defendant refused, which necessitating
them to file the suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
6. The defendant-Gram Panchayat, upon receiving notice, appeared
and filed the written statement, pleading non-maintainability of the suit on
the ground being barred by rule of resjudicata. The defendant claimed that
petition filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of Divisional Deputy Director,
Rural Development and Panchayat-cum-Collector under Section 11 of The
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, for a decision on the
question of title of the suit land, was dismissed against the plaintiffs, and
defendant was held as the owner of the suit land. The appeal preferred by
plaintiffs before Commissioner was also dismissed. The defendant filed an
eviction application against the plaintiffs, which was allowed, resulting in
their eviction from the suit land. The defendant denied that plaintiffs are
bona-fide purchasers of the suit land and also challenged the validity of the
sale deeds set up by the plaintiffs. The defendant denied the claimed
possession of the plaintiffs on the suit land.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the
issues and called the parties to present their evidence. The parties led their
evidence as detailed in the judgment of the learned Courts below. Upon
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062217
appraisal of the evidence, learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the
plaintiffs. The first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was also dismissed,
leading to filing of the instant appeal.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and gone
through the paper-book, photocopy of the pleadings and evidence placed on
record by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs; and finds no scope of
interference in the well-reasoned findings recorded by the Courts below
based on sound application of both oral and documentary evidence for the
reasons recorded below.
9. Plaintiffs brought a suit claiming them to be declared as owners
in possession of the suit land, having purchased it through the sale deeds
detailed in the plaint. However, both the Courts below, upon appraisal of the
evidence, categorically observed that plaintiffs failed to present the sale
deeds to support their oral account. It was further held that the revenue
entries i.e. Khasra Girdauri (Ex.P1) and Jamabandi (Ex.P2) also failed to
substantiate the plaintiffs' claim, as the revenue entries do not record the
names of the plaintiffs in the ownership column; instead records Gram
Panchayat, the defendant, as owner of the suit land. The learned counsel for
the appellants has failed to assail the above findings of facts recorded by the
Courts below by pointing any evidence to the contrary or proving them
factually wrong.
10. The plaintiffs have asserted their possession on the suit land since
their purchase in 1977-79 and 1980. However, revenue record ie. Khasra
Girdauri (Ex P1) and Jamabandi (Ex. P2) relied by the plaintiffs do not
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062217
establish their cultivating possession as owners on the suit land. In contrast,
copies of orders Ex. D1 to Ex. D4, provided by defendant proves that the
petition preferred by plaintiffs under section 11 of the Village Common Land
(Regulation) Act 1961 claiming their title over the suit land was dismissed
and appeal preferred by them was also dismissed.
11. Plaintiff-Partap Singh (PW-1) and Kartar Singh (PW-2) in their
statements admitted that they never filed any application for correction of
revenue record in their names. They also admitted for not adducing on record
the sale deeds to prove their claim of purchasing the suit land and their
cultivating possession on it. However, they acknowledged, prior litigation
with Gram Panchayat, the defendant over the suit land, which they lost.
Based on these material admissions, the plaintiffs failed to substantiate their
claim to be in cultivating possession on the suit land as owners. Learned
Courts below, thus, rightly considered the evidence and ruled against the
plaintiffs.
12. Furthermore, it is settled position of law that civil Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain the suit regarding the issue of vesting or non-vesting
of the property in Gram Panchayat. The adjudication of such issue falls
within jurisdiction of revenue Courts, as clearly delineated in Section 13 of
Village Common Land (Regulation) Act 1961, which is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
13. Bar of Jurisdiction in Civil Courts:-
No civil court shall have jurisdiction:-
(a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question, whether any
property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062217
Shamilat deh vested or deemed to have been vested in a
Panchayat under this Act ; or
(b) to question the legality of any action taken by the
Commissioner or the Collector or the Panchayat, under this
Act, or
(c) in respect of any matter which the Commissioner or the
Collector is empowered by or under this Act to determine].
13. The perusal of the above Section would indicate that the
jurisdiction of civil Court is barred in respect of any matter, which any
Revenue Court, Officer or Authority is empowered by or under the Act to
determine the issue as delineated in the Section ibid. As noticed above, the
petition filed by plaintiffs under Section 11 of Village Common Lands
(Regulation) Act, 1961 seeking title in suit land has already been ruled
against them and in favor of defendant-Gram Panchayat, as evident from the
orders Ex.D1 to Ex.D4. Thus, the claim of the plaintiffs over the suit land as
owners is clearly not maintainable against Gram Panchayat being also barred
by principle of res-judicata.
14. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has failed to point out any
misinterpretation or misreading of any piece of evidence by the Courts
below, for drawing an inference of clear conclusions against the plaintiffs
holding them not entitled to the relief.
15. In view of the above discussion, it is held that findings recorded
by learned Courts below are legal and valid, same are upheld, and requires
no interference by this Court. There are no substantial question of law
involved in this appeal. Accordingly, same is hereby dismissed.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062217
16. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
( RITU TAGORE)
02.05.2024 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
7 of 7
