Dismissed

Satnam Singh and Anr. v. Gram Panchayat Hajipur

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Oct 2011CR/6102/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a revision petition seeking to set aside orders dismissing an interim stay application. The Court held that injunctions cannot be granted against the true owner of property and directed the Gram Panchayat to continue leasing the land as the claimants were in unlawful possession.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed; the impugned order was allowed; the Gram Panchayat was permitted to lease the land.

Satnam Singh and Anr. Vs Gram Panchayat Hajipur — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CR No. 6102 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No. 6102 of 2011 Date of decision: 21.10.2011

¶5

Satnam Singh and another

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Gram Panchayat Hajipur, Tehsil and District Patiala through its Sarpanch

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.AS Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

Mr.Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the respondent

¶13

¶14

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.9.2011, (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide which the appeal filed by the present petitioners against the order dated 5.8.2011, (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala, dismissing the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed.

¶16

The present petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction alongwith an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay. As per the plaint, they are in peaceful,

¶17

CR No. 6102 of 2011

¶18

¶19

actual physical and continuous possession over the suit land prior to 26.1.1950.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs contends that the plaintiffs/ petitioners are in actual physical possession over the suit land since 26.1.1950. They are cultivating the land since their forefather. Further contends that due to party faction in the village, the defendant /respondent is threatening to disturb their possession over the land in question. Further contends that no order of ejecting them has been passed against them.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayat contends that the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat and is being put to open auction for letting out on lease in the village on year to year basis. Presently it is on lease with Kulwant Singh for his being the highest bidder for the year 2010-2011.

¶22

Further inter alia contends that the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, who is the brother of petitioner No.1, is hands in gloves with the petitioners-plaintiffs.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully with their able assistance.

¶24

From the perusal of the case file, it reveals that the land in question belongs to Gram Panchayat village Hajipur. The same is being leased out through open auction for a period of one year only. The petitioners-plaintiffs are seeking injunction against the Gram Panchayat.

¶25

It is a settled law that against a true owner, injunction cannot be granted. The Gram Panchayat is the owner and in actual physical possession

¶26

CR No. 6102 of 2011

¶27

¶28

of the land through its lessee. From the revenue record it emerges that the lease period of the plaintiffs-petitioners already expired. For the year 201011, the land in question has been leased out to one Kulwant Singh being the highest bidder. The Khasra Girdwarai stand corrected in favour of the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel has failed to show any record to prove the fact of physical possession over the suit land.

¶29

In re: Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others vs. Assistant

¶30

Charity Commissioner and others (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 137,

¶31

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶32

“Judicial proceedings cannot be used to protect or to perpetuate a wrong committed by a person, who approaches the court. It is settled law that no injunction could be granted against the true owner at the instance of persons in unlawful possession.”

¶33

Under the garb of injunction order prayed for, the plaintiffspetitioners cannot be allowed to tresspass into the Gram Panchayat land.

¶34

In view of the above, the present civil revision fails and the same is dismissed.

¶35

21.10.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE

¶36

Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No

Satnam Singh and Anr. v. Gram Panchayat Hajipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satnam Singh and Anr. v. Gram Panchayat Hajipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veena Rani and Ors. Vs Pawandeep and Ors.

Anil Vs Subhash and Ors.

Usha Devi and Ors. Vs Subhash and Ors.

Sadhu Singh and Ors. Vs Jagdishwar Singh & Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Baldev Singh

Baldev Singh Vs State of Haryana