Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 1499
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Dalip Singh and another - Appellants
Versus
Gram Panchayat, VPO Chiri, through its Sarpanch - Respondent
RSA No. 899 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 05-12-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Davinder Singh
The burden of proof lies with the party claiming ownership, and the civil court's jurisdiction is limited in cases where land ownership is governed by specific legislation.
Headnote:
ownership - dispute over Lal Dora land - Haryana Panchayat Act - Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961 - [Section 205 of the Haryana Panchayat Act, Section 13 of Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration as owners in possession of Lal Dora land and permanent injunction against the defendant. The defendant claimed ownership and alleged unauthorized fencing by the plaintiffs. The trial court ruled against the plaintiffs, and the appeal was also dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of the Lal Dora land and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the ownership as it vested in the Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961.
Issues: Dispute over Lal Dora land ownership, jurisdiction of civil court, burden of proof, and admissibility of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of the Lal Dora land, and the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide ownership as it vested in the Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were upheld.
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
The present regular second appeal is at the behest of the plaintiffs being aggrieved of the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below dismissing their suit.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their original position in the suit.
3. The suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiffs as owner in possession of the land shown by letters ABCD and BCEF in the site plan attached with the suit. Further, the permanent injunction was prayed for restraining the defendant from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs.
4. The facts averred in the plaint are that plaintiffs are residents of village Chiri having ancestral houses since time of their forefathers. It is alleged that the same are situated within the Lal Dora area of the village. In front of the said houses where the plaintiffs are keeping their fodder, animals and uplas, the area owned and possessed by Rajbir Singh was shown in red color and bounded as ABCD and owned and possessed by Dalip Singh shown in black color and bounded as BCEF. The said area is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs since the time of their forefathers and defendant has no concern with the disputed land. It is alleged that Sarpanch of village with a bad intention because of political rivalry wants to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. The defendant had issued a notice dated 31.12.2014 and called upon the plaintiffs to show documents regarding ownership of the property. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit. On notice, defendant filed written statement and raised the preliminary objections regarding maintainability, jurisdiction and suppression.
5. On merits, it was alleged that the defendant is the true owner of the suit land and the plaintiffs have done unauthorised fencing of the suit land which does not prove their title. It was further stated that the notice under Section 205 of the Haryana Panchayat Act was not served on the defendant. On the notice instead of showing document of title, the suit has been filed. The replication to the written statement was filed.
6. Learned trial Court framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for declaration as prayed for? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
4. Relief.
7. In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs appeared as PW1 and PW3. Bhal Singh Ex. Panch of the Panchayat appeared as PW2. The plaintiffs exhibited site plan, photographs, notices, copies of jamabandis etc as P1 to P12.
8. In order to rebut the claim of the plaintiffs, defendant examined Amit Kumar as DW1. The defendant exhibited the resolutions report of demarcation, site plans, copies of jamabandi etc. as D1 to D10.
9. Learned trial Court after appreciating the facts and considering the evidence produced, decided issues No.1 and 2 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant. Issue No.3 was decided against the plaintiffs. The net result was that the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.07.2016.
10. Aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, plaintiffs filed the appeal. Learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2016. Hence the present regular second appeal.
11. The gist of controversy in the present appeal is that there is dispute with regard to an open area of which the plaintiffs claimed to be owners in possession. It is admitted by the plaintiffs that they do not have documents of ownership as land falls within Lal Dora of the village. The fact that the suit land falls within Lal Dora has been taken as one of the main plank to say that the jurisdiction of civil Court is not barred.
12. The pinpointed issue which needs adjudication is whether the suit land falls within the Lal Dora or not? Rest of the reliefs and contentions would rely up
