The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper adjudication of forest panchayat land disputes, the need for compliance with procedural rules, and the jurisdictional issues related to civil courts in such matters.

Lok Pal Singh, J.

1. Present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2004, passed by the District Judge, Bageshwar in Civil Appeal no. 4 of 2004, whereby the first appellate court has allowed the appeal of plaintiff/respondent and set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2004 passed by the learned trial court whereby the original suit no. 46 of 1993 filed by the plaintiff/respondent was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent filed Original Suit no. 43 of 1993, Van Panchayat Gulam Pargarh vs. Diwan Singh and others with the averments that Gulam Pargarh Van Panchayat was constituted by the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal Nainital and Nain Giri was the president of Van Panchayat Gulam Pargarh. It is contended that the aforesaid Van Panchayat was constituted in the year 1949 and the map of Schedule A is the part of the plaint. In the map, the panchayat land has been shown with red colour. The plaintiff is doing management of van panchayat and in possession of the property in dispute. On 08.08.1993, the defendants demolished the wall of disputed property i.e. compartment no. 8 and on restraining them, they quarreled with the plaintiff, therefore suit for injunction was filed.

3. The suit was contested by defendant nos. 1 to 4. They filed their written statement and contended that in the year 1952, van panchayat was constituted by the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal. The suit was filed to describe the property in dispute on the basis of the map of schedule A and the location of the disputed property has been mentioned in it. It is also contended that averments of the plaint are vague. It is also contended that there is boundary dispute of two villages and suit cannot be maintained to ascertain the boundaries of two villages in regard to van panchayat land.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

(i) Whether Schedule A of the plaint shown in compartment no. 8 with red ink (line wise) is the van panchayat land of plaintiff?

(ii) Whether the defendants are damaging the plaintiff’s land by doing illegal interference?

(iii) Whether the plaint is vague. If so its effect?

(iv) Whether the present suit is in regard to the demarcation of the land of village panchayat, therefore civil court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit?

(v) Whether State of Uttar Pradesh is necessary party in the suit?

(vi) Whether defendants are entitled for damages of suit. If so its effect?

(vii) To what relief plaintiff is entitled for?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff Nain Giri, Sarpanch was examined as P.W.1, Bhawan Singh as P.W.2, Padam Singh as P.W.3 and D. R. Arya (Amin Commissioner) as P.W.4 (appointed by the court with the consent of both the parties).

6. The defendants have adduced oral evidence and examined witness Bahadur Singh as D.W.1 and Diwan Singh as D.W.2. Both the parties have adduced documentary evidence, copy of map, khasra and khatoni.

7. The learned trial court recorded its finding on issue nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent by judgment and decree dated 14.05.2004. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2004, civil appeal no. 4 of 2004 Van Panchayat Gulampargarh vs. Diwan Singh was filed.

8. The first appellate court by its judgment and decree dated 14.06.2004 allowed the appeal and decreed the suit, directed the defendants not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2004, this second appeal is preferred.

10. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether in a suit for permanent injunction it is necessary for the plaintiff to plead and prove the fact about the disputed land and the place/site of causing damage to the disputed land of the plaintiff, and the time of causing such damage and to pin point in the plaint map the particular place where damage is caused?