Back
2014 Supreme(P&H) 1154
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.
Gram Panchayat, Jakholi and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Banwari and Ors. - Respondent
R.S.A. Nos. 2252 of 1990, 50 and 53 of 1991 (O&M)
Decided On : 09-01-2014
For the Appellant :Bikram Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents:Bhoop Singh, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court will not interfere in concurrent findings of fact without a substantial question of law involved, as per the amended Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Headnote:
Ejectment - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Section 7 - [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] - The court discussed the issues related to possession of the suit land, the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat, and the validity of the ejectment orders. The key legal provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 were interpreted to determine the ownership and possession of the land, and the court's decision was influenced by the findings related to the possession and ownership of the suit land.
Fact of the Case:
The Gram Panchayat filed a suit for injunction claiming unauthorised possession over the suit land. The defendants contested the claim, asserting their continued possession and cultivation of the land. The court found that the Gram Panchayat failed to prove its case and dismissed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Gram Panchayat never took possession of the suit land and that the document claiming possession was manipulated. The court upheld the judgments of the lower appellate court, concluding that no interference was warranted.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the plaintiff to recover the alleged amount, possession of the suit land, the status of the land on a specific date, the necessity of parties, and the relief sought.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that no interference was warranted as no substantial question of law was found involved. The first appellate court's findings were based on sound reasons and the court would not transgress its jurisdiction without a substantial question of law.
Final Decision: All three appeals were dismissed, upholding the judgments and decrees of the lower courts.
1. Three connected appeals are proposed to be decided together as all are arising out of same set of facts involving the identical issues. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from RSA No. 2252 of 1990. Briefly put, facts of the case are that the appellant-Gram Panchayat filed a suit for injunction on the ground that the defendants were in unauthorised possession over the suit land. Ejectment application under Section 7of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, ('VCL Act' for short), titled as Gram Panchayat v. Nafe Singh and others was allowed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Kaithal, vide order dated 25.7.1983 and the appeal filed by the defendants was also dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 23.1.1984. It was further pleaded case of the appellant-Gram Panchayat that in compliance of the ejectment orders, possession of the suit land was obtained on 28.11.1983, vide Report No. 117 entered in the Daily Diary by the Patwari.
2. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement controverting the assertion made by the plaintiff-appellant, raising many preliminary objections including about the maintainability of the suit. Defendants claimed that they were continuing in cultivating possession on the suit land and have sown their crops of cotton, jawar etc., which were standing in the fields. They planted numerous trees in the land and they also dug the tubewells. It was also pleaded that a similar suit was already pending filed by Nafe Singh etc. against this very Gram Panchayat Jakholi. The learned Civil Court vide its order dated 24.12.1983 rejected the plaint of Nafe Singh etc. on the ground that it had no jurisdiction. Appeal was filed, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide its order dated 4.4.1984 holding that the suit land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The possession of the suit land was still with the defendants and the Daily Dairy Report No. 117 dated 28.11.1983 was manipulated document. It was further asserted that nobody had gone to the spot to take the possession of the suit land from the defendants.
3. On completion of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover ` 10,000/- as alleged in the plaint? OPP.
2. Whether the Gram Panchayat Jakholi took possession on 28.11.1983 as alleged in the written-statement? OPD.
3. Whether the land was lying unsown on 28.11.1983? OPD
4. Whether the Gram Panchayat Jakholi is a necessary party? OPD
5. Whether Sham Kumar B.D. & P.O. Shri Bishan Singh SHO, PS Pundri and Karam Singh ASI Pundri are also necessary party? OPD
6. Relief.
4. To substantiate their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff-Gram Panchayat never took the possession of the suit land from the defendant on 28.11.1987 and the document bearing Report No. 117 dated 28.11.1983 was a manipulated and bogus document. Plaintiff failed to prove its case and finally the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 11.1.1989. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs-appellants filed appeal before the learned lower appellate court, which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 28.7.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. Hence, this appeal.
5. Exactly similar was the position in RSA No. 50 of 1991, wherein suit for injunction filed by Nafe Singh etc. against Gram Panchayat, Jakholi, was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 11.1.1989. On exactly similar set of facts, Gram Panchayat Jakholi, filed its appeal before the learned lower appellate court, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.7.1990. In the third case, i.e. RSA No. 53
