-1-

2024:PHHC:004374

RSA-558-2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RSA-558-2019 (O&M)

Reserved on : 10.01.2024

Pronounced on : 16.01.2024

MAJOR SINGH AND ANOTHER

....Appellants

VERSUS

GRAM PANCHAYAT

....Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present :

Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate for the appellants.

ALKA SARIN, J.

1.

The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the

plaintiff-appellants against the judgments and decrees dated 15.07.2015 and

19.11.2018 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

2.

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

appellants filed the present suit averring therein that the plaintiff-appellants

are the owners of suit property i.e. Khewat Khatauni No.624/531/975,

Khasra No.64//10/3(2-0) which is owned and possessed by plaintiff-

appellant No.1 and land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.625/532/973,

Khasra No.64//10/2(1-11) wherein plaintiff-appellant No.1 has 11/12th share

and plaintiff-appellant No.2 has 1/12th share as per the jamabandi for the

year 2007-08. It is further averred that the defendant-respondent/Gram

Panchayat is trying to take forcible possession of the suit property.

3.

On notice, defendant-respondent/Gram Panchayat filed it’s

written statement. It was averred by the defendant-respondent/Gram

AMAN JAIN

2024.01.16 13:41

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this judgment/order.

-2-

2024:PHHC:004374

RSA-558-2019

Panchayat that the plaintiff-appellants in connivance with the revenue

authorities got their names mentioned as owners of the property in dispute

and the same was challenged by the defendant-respondent/Gram Panchayat

before the Collector-cum-Divisional Deputy Director Panchayat, Patiala

wherein an order was passed on 30.04.2007 vide which the defendant-

respondent/Gram Panchayat was declared as owner of the property in

dispute. The appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellants before the Director,

Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab was dismissed and the

defendant-respondent/Gram Panchayat was held to be owner of the property

in dispute. It is further averred that the present suit was filed only to stop the

execution of the warrants of possession.

4.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues

were framed :

(i)

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of

permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

(ii)

Whether the plaintiff is jurisdiction of the Court is

barred under Punjab Village and Common Land

Act ? OPD

(iii)

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not

maintainable in the present form ? OPD

(iv) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court

with clean hands and has concealed the material

facts ? OPD

AMAN JAIN

2024.01.16 13:41

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this judgment/order.

-3-

2024:PHHC:004374

RSA-558-2019

(v)

Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi and

cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

(vi) Relief.

5.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties and the evidence led,

the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and

decree an appeal was preferred which also came to be dismissed. Hence, the

present Regular Second Appeal.

6.

Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the

plaintiff-appellants had not disclosed the previous litigation in the present

suit and that the defendant-respondent/Gram Panchayat had been held to be

owner vide Exhibits D-5 and D-7. Even as per the jamabandi (Exhibit D-6)

it is clear that the actual owner in the year 1992-93 was the Gram Panchayat

and thereafter wrong entries were made qua the suit property in the revenue

records.

7.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has vehemently

contended that the plaintiff-appellants are the owners of the suit property and

in any case even if t