JUDGMENT :

Virinder Aggarwal, J.

The present common judgment is rendered to address the disposal of the aforementioned Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter "RSA") and a connected Contempt of Court Petition (COCP), both arising from the same set of legal and factual issues. Since the parties in both matters are identical and their respective counsel have expressed no objection to joint hearing, the RSA and COCP are being adjudicated together in the interest of judicial economy.

2. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the factual background for this common judgment is adopted from RSA-831 of 1998, titled "Bhupinder Singh (Since Deceased) Through His LRs and Others vs. Municipal Committee, Rampura and Another", as it comprehensively encapsulates the relevant facts. Given that the issues in the connected matters are substantially similar, the facts in RSA-831 of 1998 are treated as representative for the purpose of adjudicating both captioned cases.

3. The instant RSA has been instituted to challenge the judgment and decree dated 09.02.1998 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, in the appeal titled "Bhupinder Singh and Others vs. Municipal Committee, Rampura and Another." By the impugned judgment, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the earlier decision of the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Phul, which had dismissed the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 35 of 1988.

4. The succinct facts of the case as presented by the appellants are as follows:-

Land comprised in Khasra No. 724, situated within the revenue estate of Rampura, is recorded as 'Abadi Deh' and has, from time immemorial, been used and enjoyed by the inhabitants of Rampura for common and communal purposes. The appellants, being bona-fide residents of the locality, are in peaceful possession of a portion of the said land, which has traditionally been utilized by 'Bashindgan' for social gatherings and community functions. While a part of the land remains vacant, the remaining portion continues to be in possession and use of various residents of the village. The land in dispute is not recorded in the ownership register of the Municipal Committee, Rampura, and therefore, the said authority has no lawful right, title, or interest in it. Despite this, the respondent-Municipal Committee has illegally asserted ownership over the land and attempted to interfere with the appellants' settled possession, even making efforts to alienate or transfer the same without any legal authority. The appellants, inspired by public welfare, had proposed to construct a charitable hospital on the vacant portion of the land for the benefit of the local community. However, in view of the respondents' unwarranted interference and unlawful claim, the appellants were compelled to seek judicial intervention for the protection of their possession and to safeguard the collective rights of the residents of Rampura over the suit property. Hence the suit"

5. The suit was opposed by the respondents/defendants on the grounds enumerated below:-

"The respondent-Municipal Committee is the lawful owner and custodian of the land comprising Khasra No. 724, which has been duly recorded and utilized for public purposes as the old Subzi Mandi. It is denied that the appellants have any right, title, or possession over the suit property. The respondent further submits that the father of appellant No.2 had earlier instituted a suit concerning the same and adjoining land, which was finally adjudicated up to the Hon'ble Apex Court and decided against him. Pursuant to the said decision, the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division categorically held that appellant No.2's father (defendant No.2 in the main suit) was not entitled to any fresh allotment, and his claim stood rejected. The appellants, having no independent right or locus standi, have now filed the suit only to re-agitate an issue that already stands concluded. The respondents, therefore, assert that