Second appeal dismissed in limine as frivolous. Appellants could not seek further relief after affirming decree directing them to hand over possession of shamlat land to Gram Panchayat in earlier litigation.
Appeal dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2721 OF 2009(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA NO.2721 OF 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 6, 2011
Sushil & Others
.... Appellants
Versus
Gram Panchayat village Assan Khurd, Panipat & Others
.... Respondents
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the appellants.
L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Plaintiffs having failed in both the courts below are in second
appeals.
The dispute relates to shamlat land of the village. Some proprietors of the village obtained decree dated 28.02.1983, whereby proprietors were declared owners of the shamlat land including the suit land. The said decree was challenged in Civil Suit titled 'Amar Singh etc. versus Karan Singh etc.' filed by some proprietors. Gram Panchayat was impleaded as defendant No.47 in the said suit. Vide judgment and decree dated 11.05.2000, the said suit was decreed by the trial court and thereby decree dated 28.02.1983 was held to be null and void, illegal and without jurisdiction and result of fraud and misrepresentation and not binding on the inhabitants of the village who were held entitled to use the suit property for common purpose. Mandatory injunction, directing defendants No.1 to 46 of the said suit to hand over possession of the shamlat land including suit land to Gram Panchayat defendant No. 47 of the said suit and permanent injunction
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2721 OF 2009(O&M) -2-
restraining defendants No.1 to 46 of the said suit from alienating the shamlat land including suit land in any manner, as claimed, was also granted. Judgment and decree dated 11.05.2000 of the trial court were challenged by defendant No.1 of the said suit by filing first appeal. During pendency of the said first appeal, appellants herein filed the instant suit alleging that no ejectment order has been passed against them but the defendants threatened to auction the suit land. Plaintiff/appellants, therefore, sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land forcibly and illegally and from auctioning the suit land except in due course of law.
Defendants contested the suit. It was pleaded that decree dated 28.02.1983 which was collusive has already been set aside vide judgment and decree dated 11.05.2000 and, therefore, plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit land. It was alleged that suit land was being auctioned as per rules. Various other pleas were also raised.
Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 25.09.2008 dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 26.02.2009 . Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs has filed the instant second appeal.
I have learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. When the instant suit was filed, first appeal against judgment and decreed dated 11.05.2000 of the trial court in suit titled 'Amar Singh etc. versus Karan Singh etc.' was still pending. However, now admittedly, not only the said first appeal has since been dismissed but even second appeal in the said suit has been dismissed and judgment and decree dated 11.05.2000 passed
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2721 OF 2009(O&M) -3-
by the trial court in said suit stand affirmed. The said decree inter alia provided relief that inhabitants of the village are entitled to use the shamlat land including suit land for common purpose. Mandatory injunction directing defendants No.1 to 46 of the said suit (including predecessor of the appellants herein) to hand over possession of the shamlat land including suit land to defendant No.47 of the suit-Gram Panchayat (defendant-respondent No.1 herein) was also granted. In view of the said judgment and decree passed in suit titled 'Amar Singh etc. versus Karan Singh etc.' as affirmed upto this court in second appeal, the appellants have no case. The instant second appeal is completely frivolous and meritless.
Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the aforesaid decree dated 11.05.2000 may be executed but the appellants cannot be dispossessed forcibly from the suit land. The contention is completely meritless. The appellants have already been ordered to hand over the possession of suit land to Gram Panchayat and therefore appellants cannot seek any injunction against the Gram Panchayat by filing instant separate suit. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on judgment of this Court in the case of Udey Singh versus Gram Panchayat Nangal Jat, 2010(6) RCR (Civil) 1027 and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramji Rai & another versus Jagdish Mallah (dead) through L.Rs. & Another, 2007(3)RCR (Civil) 680. These judgments are no help to the appellants. In the instant case, there is already decree by the court of competent jurisdiction and in view thereof, inhabitants are entitled to use the suit land for common purpose and by way of mandatory injunction, appellants' predecessor and other concerned persons were directed to hand over possession of the shamlat land including suit land to Gram Panchayat. In view thereof, no further proceedings for seeking
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2721 OF 2009(O&M) -4-
ejectment of the appellants from the suit land under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 are required to be taken in the instant case. Consequently, the aforesaid judgments are not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant appeal, which is completely frivolous and meritless. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. In fact, the entire litigation from the trial court to this court in the instant lis is complete abuse of process of the court. Having lost in the previous litigation up to this court, the appellants are still pursuing this litigation unnecessarily. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE
06.01.2011 'raj'
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sushil & Others
Gram Panchayat village Assan Khurd
L. N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
