IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.01.2026 Ran Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Gram Panchayat of Village Chhichhrana ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ishnoor Singh, Advocate and Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Pannu, Advocate for the respondent.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-2161-C-2014 Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 42 days in refiling the accompanying appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 42 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

RSA-945-2014 (O&M)

Plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby suit filed by the appellant for permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned Courts below were in patent error in denying permanent injunction to the appellant as there is concurrent categoric finding of fact by both the Courts below that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. Learned counsel argues that in a suit for permanent injunction only possession is to be seen and title of the appellant was not in question. It is submitted that in view of the admitted fact that the plaintiff is in actual and physical cultivating possession of the suit land and has been paying water cost/Tavan to the Canal Department, injunction could not have been denied to the appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the courts below were in patent legal error, while holding that the suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court. It is argued that the injunction suit is maintainable, whereas, the declaration suit is barred under section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act. Thus, jurisdiction of Civil Court is not barred as per the provision of section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act with regard to granting of injunction.

4. It is submitted that therefore, the plaintiff could not have been denied injunction and could not have been dispossessed except in due course of law. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff and submits that the suit land in the present case is shamlat in nature. As such, jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. It is submitted that therefore, judgments of the learned Courts below suffer from no error, and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff.

7. Perusal of the record of the case shows that right since the inception, it is the pleaded case of the appellant/plaintiff that he is in a physical and cultivating possession over the suit land measuring 31K 4M vide Jamabandi for the year 2002-2003. It is undisputed fact on record that the plaintiff’s rights in the shamilat Thola Hukmi were confirmed by the Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.06.2007 and affirmed in Civil Appeal. Plaintiff also proved on record that he is paying water cess to the Canal Department in respect of the suit land which is being cultivated by him. Possession of the plaintiff over the suit property is also proved from khasra girdawari Ex.P3. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, Trial Court in para 18 of its judgment dated 07.02.2011 has noted as follows: -

“18. The plaintiff has failed to place on file the consolidation record in order to prove as to for what particular purpose land was reserved.