##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-729-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: March 24, 2026

Gram Panchayat Vill. Chuliana, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak through its Sarpanch

...Petitioner

Versus

Surajmal and others ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

Present: Mr.Lekh Raj Nandal, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated

04.11.2024 passed by learned trial Court, whereby, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed at the instance of the petitioner (who is

defendant No.1 before learned trial Court), was dismissed.

The essential facts, to be noticed, are as follows:-

That, the plaintiffs-respondents No.1 to 6 had filed a suit for

declaration to the effect that they together with proforma defendants are exclusive owners in possession of the agricultural land measuring 10 Kanal 16 Marla, as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, copy whereof is Annexure P-1 and also sought that they are entitled to get their names entered in column of ownership of jamabandi and other revenue record, on

VINEET GULATI 2026.03.27 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CR-729-2025 -2-

the basis of the proprietary rights, having vested in the plaintiffs and proforma defendants, in view of Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants

(Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (Punjab Act No.8 of 1953).

In pursuance of the notice issued, defendant No.1 (petitioner

herein) made appearance and filed written statement, wherein, it was asserted that the suit property was owned and possessed by the Gram Panchayat (petitioner-defendant No.1). If any entries in the jamabandis regarding the suit land are in the name of Shera and other persons, they are false and frivolous. It was denied that the plaintiffs-respondents No.1 to 6 are in possession of the suit land for more than 30 years, as asserted in the plaint and that they had acquired the rights and status of an occupancy tenant of the suit land, as alleged. In the written statement, also reference was made to the orders passed by Revenue Courts and also filing of CWP- 2831-1994 and the same having been dismissed vide order dated

16.12.2013.

During the pendency of the said suit, an application under

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed. Paragraphs No.3 and 4 of the application,

are reproduced in verbatim, as herein given:-

“3. That the father of the plaintiffs namely Ram Singh and Banwari Lal S/o Sher Singh had been ejected from the suit land by the revenue Court i.e. A.C. 1st Grade, Rohtak and the appeal of the said Ram Singh and Banwari was also dismissed by the Appellate Court i.e. Collector, Rohtak by way of order dated 30-08-1993. After that the above said Ram Singh Banwari Lal also filed CWP No. 2831 of 1994 and the same was dismissed by way of order dated 16-12-2013. So the present suit is

VINEET GULATI 2026.03.27 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CR-729-2025 -3-

barred by law.

4. That the present suit is apparently barred by law and the plaint of the suit is liable to be rejected as provided U/o

7 Rule 11 CPC.”

However, reply to the said application was filed and therein, it

was stated that the order passed by the Revenue Court dated 30.08.1993 and order dated 16.12.1993 passed by this Court, do not relate to the same property. The suit property is not identical. In fact, it is stated that in the aforesaid litigation, the suit land was to the extent of 7 Kanal 4 Marla, whereas, in the instant manner, the suit is measuring 10 Kanal 16 Marla. Moreover, it was asserted that the plaintiffs have claimed ownership of the suit land, in view of the provisions, as contemplated in Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 and the provisions of the said Act, are fully applicable to the facts of the present manner and

therefore, they are likely to be declared as owners of the suit land.

After hearing counsel for the p