IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gram Panchayat Dhani Khanbahadur . . . . Appellant Vs.

Krishan Kumar and Others . . . . Respondents ****

Reserved on: 15.01.2026 Pronounced on: 22.01.2026 Pronounced fully/opera;ve part: Fully ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate and Ms. Nandini Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pooja Sareen, Advocate for the respondents.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present second appeal has been preferred by defendant–

Gram Panchayat against the judgment & decree dated 21.11.1997 passed by the learned First Appellate Court of Addi0onal District Judge, Hisar, whereby the ap- peal filed by the plain0ffs (respondents herein) was allowed, reversing the judg- ment of the trial Court of senior Sub-Judge, Hisar dated 08.11.1994, and the suit for declara0on and consequen0al relief of permanent injunc0on was decreed.

2. In order to avoid confusion, par0es are being referred to as per their status before the trial Court. The record of the trial Court, as available on the DMS, has been perused.

3.1 According to the plain0ffs, their father, late Shri Kulwant Rai, had been a tenant in cul0va0ng possession of the suit land for more than 35 years. A=er his death on 11.03.1985, the Gram Panchayat, which is the recorded owner of the land, conducted auc0on proceedings on 06.04.1985. The plain0ffs have assailed the said auc0on as null, illegal and void, contending that upon the demise of their father, they inherited his tenancy rights and con0nued to remain in possession of the suit land. It is their case that on the strength of the im- pugned auc0on proceedings, defendant No.1–Gram Panchayat, in collusion with defendants No.2 to 4, in whose favour the auc0on was held, started interfering in their possession.

3.2 It was further pleaded that far back in the year 1978, the Gram Panchayat had a?empted to dispossess the plain0ffs’ father. Kulwant Rai had filed a civil suit for injunc0on, which was decreed in the year 1983. In the said judgment, he was held to be a tenant in possession of the suit land and it was specifically directed that he could be dispossessed only in due course of law. Therea=er, the Gram Panchayat ini0ated ejectment proceedings against him un- der Sec0on 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act before the Assistant Col- lector, 1st Grade, Hisar, which, according to the plain0ffs, were s0ll pending. It is alleged that taking undue advantage of the death of Kulwant Rai, the Gram Pan-

chayat proceeded to auc0on the suit land.

3.3 On these averments, the suit was ins0tuted on 10.04.1985 seeking a declara0on that the plain0ffs along with the proforma defendants are tenants in possession of the suit land, as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, for the last more than 35 years, and that the auc0on proceedings conducted by the Gram Panchayat on 06.04.1985 are illegal, null and void. Consequen0al relief of permanent injunc0on was also sought to restrain defendants No.1 to 4 from in-

terfering in the plain0ffs’ possession on the basis of the said auc0on.

4. The suit was contested by defendants No.1 to 4, who denied the plain0ffs’ claim of tenancy. It was contended that although Kulwant Rai was ear- lier in possession of the suit land, such possession was unauthorized. It was fur- ther pleaded that upon his death, the Gram Panchayat lawfully resumed posses- sion of the land and that no tenancy rights devolved upon the plain0ffs or pro-

forma defendants. It was asserted that the Gram Panchayat, through an open auc0on held on 06.04.1985, leased out the suit land to defendants No.2 to 4 for a period of one year, who were therea=er in lawful possession as tenants. On these grounds, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

5. In rejoinder, the plain0ffs reiterated the averments made in the plaint and controverted the stand taken by the defendants. They further pleaded that along with the ins0tu0on of the suit on 10.04.1985, an a