Dismissed

Inder Singh v. Gram Panchayat of Vill Karman

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Mar 2012CR/1899/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an appellate order that accepted a temporary injunction against a Gram Panchayat. The court held that the Panchayat, as the owner, was within its rights to allot reserved Charagah land to the Scheduled Caste community for residence without causing illegality.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed, confirming the appellate order accepting the temporary injunction against the Gram Panchayat.

Inder Singh Vs Gram Panchayat of Vill Karman — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No.1899 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.1899 of 2012 Date of decision 26.03.2012.

¶5

Inder Singh

¶6

...... Petitioner.

¶7

versus

¶8

Gram Panchayat of Village Karman

¶9

.. .... Respondent.

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI

¶11

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present : Mr. S.K.Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

K.C.PURI. J.

¶16

Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 17.2.2012 passed by Shri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Additional District Judge, Palwal vide which the appeal preferred by the Gram Panchayat against the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by Shri Anubhav Sharma, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hodel was accepted.

¶17

Briefly stated that the present plaintiff-revisionist filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from changing the nature of the suit property. It is alleged that suit property is owned by Gram Panchayat

¶18

Civil Revision No.1899 of 2012

¶19

¶20

and is reserved for “Charagah”. The defendant is now threatening to convert the nature of the property and wants to be used the same for residential purpose illegally and forcibly.

¶21

The suit was resisted by the defendant/Gram Panchayat and it is pleaded that land is being used for residential purposes under rules. It is pleaded that the land is Banjar Kadim and Banjar Jadid and is a pasture land. The land is being allotted for benefits of scheduled caste community. 4. Along with the suit, an application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – the CPC) was filed and the same was accepted by the trial Court vide order dated 26.9.2011 passed by Shri Anubhav Sharma, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hodel. The said order dated 26.9.2011 was challenged by the Gram Panchayat by filing appeal and the same was accepted by Shri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Additional District Judge, Palwal vide order dated 17.2.2012. The plaintiff-petitioner has challenged the said order in the present revision petition.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the case file.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has repeated the arguments as per his pleadings. It is contended that nature of the land cannot be changed. The land reserved for “Charagah” cannot be given to the scheduled caste community for residential purpose.

¶24

I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.

¶25

Admittedly, the Gam Panchayat is owner of the suit property.

¶26

Civil Revision No.1899 of 2012

¶27

¶28

There is no allegation that there is any mala fide on the part of the Gram Panchayat. The Appellate Court has observed in its order that there is 176 kanals of land available with the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat is utilizing the land for uplifting the status of scheduled caste community and to provide them a place for residence. The Gram Panchayat is the best judge for utilization of the land. The land which is being allotted to the Harijans is only stated to be 54 kanals and the total land for “Charagah”, as per revenue record is about 176 kanals. So, even if the land is allotted to the scheduled caste community, in that case also, still sufficient land is lying with the Gram Panahcyat for utilization as “Charagah” . So, I see no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court.

¶29

Consequently, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.

¶30

However, it is made clear that any observations made by this Court or by the First Appellate Court shall not construe to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶31

A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.

¶32

( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE

¶33

March 26 , 2012 sv

Inder Singh v. Gram Panchayat of Vill Karman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inder Singh v. Gram Panchayat of Vill Karman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balwinder Singh and Ors. Vs Harjit Kaur and Ors.

(O&M) Ram Chander Vs Bhoop Singh etc.

Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs Kanhiya Lal Yadav

Ram Singh Vs Bhagwan Dass and Ors.

Sukhmander Singh Vs Gurdit Singh and Ors.

Baldev Singh and Ors. Vs Jit Singh and Ors.