IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

RSA-2619-1995 (O&M)

Man Phool (deceased) through LRs and others . . . . Appellants Vs.

Gram Panchayat Khaishergarh and others . . . . Respondents ****

Reserved on: 03.02.2026 Pronounced on: 09.02.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA ****

Present: - Mr. Rajeev Godhara and Ms. Divya Godhara, Advocates, for the appellants.

Mr. Chamandeep, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

None for respondent No.2.

Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the concurrent judgments and decrees dated 30.10.1992 passed by the learned Trial Court and dated 22.03.1995 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by them stood dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

3. Pleadings of the Parties : The plaintiffs claim to be proprietors and residents of village Khaishergarh since the time of their forefathers. Plaintiffs No.2 to 4 and plaintiffs No.5 to 7 are stated to be owners of substantial agricultural holdings in the village. It was pleaded that earlier plaintiff No.1 and Surja Ram, father of plaintiffs No.2 to 4, owned about 40 acres of land, which later stood transferred to the succeeding generation.

4.1 The dispute pertains to land measuring 869 kanal 17 marla, recorded in the revenue record as Mushtarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat. According to the plaintiffs, this land was allotted during consolidation proceedings, whereafter part of it was cultivated by the proprietors, while the remaining portion was utilised for common purposes such as ponds, grazing land, meadows, wells and other miscellaneous purposes. Out of the total land, plaintiffs No.1 to 4 asserted cultivating possession over 9 kanal 4 marla, comprised in Khasra Nos. 76//22/1 (4-9)and 76//21/2/1 (4-15) (hereinafter referred to as the disputed parcel).

4.2 The cause of action arose when the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa, passed an order dated 11.05.1988 directing the Tehsildar to sanction mutation of the entire land in favour of defendant No.1–Gram Panchayat. Pursuant thereto, Mutation No.1171 was sanctioned on 27.05.1988.

4.3 The plaintiffs alleged that the said order and mutation were illegal, void and without jurisdiction, having been passed without issuing notice or granting an opportunity of hearing to the proprietors. It was further alleged that on the basis of the said mutation, the Gram Panchayat was threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the disputed parcel. Since the proprietary body consisted of a large number of persons, the suit was filed in a representative capacity by impleading the proprietary body as defendant No.3.

5. Defendant No.3 (proprietary body) was proceeded against ex parte.

6. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested the suit, asserting that the land in question is shamlat deh, which stood vested in the Gram Panchayat by operation of law under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as applicable to Haryana. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs were unauthorised occupants and that ejectment proceedings under Section 7 of the Act were already pending before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. A specific objection regarding the bar of jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 13 of the Act was also raised.

7. Findings of the Courts Below : Upon framing issues and appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court held that the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner and the consequent mutation could not be held to be illegal or void. It was further held that the proprietors were not the owners of the suit land. On these findings, the suit was dismissed.

8. In the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, the First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and additionally held that the civil court lacked ju