##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 20.05.2025 Ramesh Chand ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Gram Panchayat of village Khandra ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ankit Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-Gram Panchayat from changing the nature of agricultural land comprising in Khewat No. 486, Khatoni No. 530, Khasra No. 18, Killa No. 8 (8-0) (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land) and mandatory injunction directing the defendant to removal illegal construction over the suit property, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. It was the pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff is Biswedar having rights in Panchayat Deh, Gora-Deh, Abadi-Deh and common lands of the village. The suit land, including other lands in the ownership of the defendant Gram Panchayat, was leased out to the highest bidder in open auction of more than Rs.58,000/- per acre per year. Shailender Singh who was elected as Sarpanch in the last Gram Panchayat election, was inimical towards the plaintiff and some other villagers and he had started illegally misusing the Panchayat funds and damaging Gram Panchayat properties. In furtherance to which the Sarpanch and other members belonging to the defendant Gram Panchayat had passed resolution without preparing land utilization plan as required under Rule 3 of the Consolidation Rules 1964 and the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Rules 1964. The plaintiff had objected and requested the defendant to stop the illegal construction however to no avail. The defendant was still proceeding to raise boundary wall on the suit land despite objections. It was contended that the suit property is Nehri/agricultural land and is a source of income for the Panchayat through lease. Hence, the present suit was filed on

23.07.2020.

3. Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement resisting the suit. It was pleaded that the defendant-Gram Panchayat Khandra was in actual, physical and exclusive possession of the suit property; that out of the suit land the defendant had already allotted plots measuring 100 sq.yds. to different persons belonging to Schedule Caste/Backward Class, and persons below poverty line, under the various schemes on the directions of the Government of Haryana. It was contended that as such, nature of suit land was already changed from agricultural to residential. It was further averred that a request/application was received from the inhabitants of the Basti (created by the defendant upon the suit land), for construction of chaupal. Thereafter, the defendant had passed a resolution No. 1 dated 11.09.2019 which was submitted before the higher authorities i.e. BD & PO, SDO (PR) Madlauda, XEN(PR), Panipat; whereafter construction of chaupal was allowed for the benefit of the entire village community.

4. Replication was not filed.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial court vide order dated 27.01.2021:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP

2. Whether the instant court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant suit?OPD.

3. Whether the instant suit is not maintainable?OPD

4.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the instant suit?OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has concealed material facts?OPD

6. Relief.”

6. Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panipat dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment and decree dated 13.02.2024. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed with costs by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated

01.02.2025. Hence,