Civil Revision No.5433 of 2011

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.5433 of 2011

Date of Decision:06.09.2011

Jagdish Rai ......Petitioner

Versus

Gram Panchayat Village Khanal Khurd and others .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

Present:

Mr.Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

****

M

EHINDER

S

INGH

S

ULLAR

, J.(oral)

The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited

purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition

and emanating from the record is that, Jagdish Rai son of Kesho Ram-petitioner-

plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of permanent

injunction, restraining the Gram Panchayat of Village Khanal Khurd, its Sarpanch

and Raj Kumar son of Janak Raj-respondent-defendants(for short “the

defendants”), from forcibly interfering in his possession and to change the nature

of the property in dispute.

2.

The case set-up by the plaintiff, in brief, insofar as relevant was that,

he is owner and in possession of the suit property, but the contrary entries

regarding ownership in the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue record, are

wrong, illegal and not binding on his rights.

3.

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of

events, in all, according to the plaintiff that he is owner and in possession of the

property in dispute. The contrary entries in the revenue record are illegal and the

defendant-Gram Panchayat has got no right, title or interest to dispossess him from

Civil Revision No.5433 of 2011

2

the property in question. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed

the suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants, in the manner

depicted hereinabove. Sequelly, the plaintiff has also filed an application for ad

interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC, on the

same lines of pleadings, as contained in the plaint.

4.

The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff, filed the written

statement and reply to the stay application, in which it was explained that the

plaintiff took the suit property on yearly lease(Theka/Chakauta) from defendant-

Gram Panchayat in the years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97, but illegally got

entered his name in the column of possession. According to the defendants that,

after 1997, the suit property was given on yearly lease(Theka/Chakauta) to various

auction bidders, including Bidder Chand, brother of the plaintiff, in the years 1993

and 2002. The land was again leased out to one Bhola Singh son of Joginder

Singh, for one year i.e. 2006-2007 and Baljit Singh son of Ram Kishan, for the

year 2007-2008 by way of auction. The entries of possession in the name of the

plaintiff as “Gair Marusi”, were stated to be wrong and against the factual

position at the spot. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants

have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint/stay application and

prayed for its dismissal.

5.

The trial Court dismissed the stay application of the plaintiff, by

means of impugned order dated 21.03.2009.

6.

Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed the

appeal, which was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court, by virtue of

impugned order dated 17.05.2011.

7.

The petitioner-plaintiff still did not feel satisfied with the impugned

orders of the courts below and preferred the present revision petition, invoking the

provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone

Civil Revision No.5433 of 2011

3

through the record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over

the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this

rel