Dismissed

Nirmal Singh v. Gram Panchayat

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Feb 2012RSA/4587/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The second appeal was dismissed as frivolous. The Court held that a plaintiff in trespasser possession without tendering rent has no right to perpetuate possession via a permanent injunction when the respondent, Gram Panchayat, has followed due legal process for ejectment.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed, upholding the dismissal of the suit for permanent injunction.

Nirmal Singh Vs Gram Panchayat — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

RSA No.4587 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

RSA No.4587 of 2010

¶5

Date of Decision: February 21, 2012

Nirmal Singh

.......Appellant

Versus

Gram Panchayat

.......Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

¶12

Present: Mr.Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

<><><>

¶14

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

¶15

The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below.

¶16

The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction in terms of pleading that he is in possession of the suit property for the last more than 40 years. Prior thereto, his father, namely, Sarwan Singh had remained in possession of the suit property. The Gram Panchayat had no concern whatsoever and was threatening to dispossess him forcibly by taking advantage of a wrong entry in the revenue record and hence, the suit.

¶17

Upon notice, the Gram Panchayat contested the suit stating that the plaintiff had taken possession of the suit property forcibly and his status is that of the rank of a trespasser. The suit property stands in the name and ownership of the Gram Panchayat and, as such, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of injunction.

¶18

RSA No.4587 of 2010

¶19

¶20

The trial Court dismissed the suit and even civil appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant has met the same fate. Resultantly, the plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.

¶21

I have heard Mr.Sham Lal Bhalla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 6. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that a person who is in settled possession, even if in the capacity of a trespasser, cannot be forcibly dispossessed and as such, he was entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction.

¶22

I find that the present second appeal is wholly mis-conceived and is frivolous. A few admitted facts need to be noticed.

¶23

As per jama-bandi for the year 2002-03, the Gram Panchayat has been recorded to be the owner of the suit property, even though the plaintiff-appellant stands reflected in column No.5 being in cultivating possession. The plaintiff-appellant has himself admitted that he has never tendered any rent whatsoever to the Gram Panchayat. Upon a petition filed by the plaintiff-appellant seeking declaration that he is owner in possession, the Collector, vide order dated 14.1.2008, has dismissed the same. Even an appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the order dated 14.1.2008 passed by the Collector stands dismissed. The Gram Panchayat has filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 to eject the plaintiff-appellant from the land in question.

¶24

As such, it is clear that the Gram Panchayat has resorted to the due process for ejectment of the plaintiff-appellant from the land in question as his status is that of a trespasser. Both the Courts below have rightly

¶25

RSA No.4587 of 2010 3

¶26

declined the relief of injunction as the grant of the same would only serve one purpose i.e. that the plaintiff-appellant to perpetuate his possession over

¶27

the land in question without any sanction in law.

¶28

The present appeal must fail as it does not raise any question of

¶29

law, much less substantial question of law.

¶30

The instant appeal being devoid of merit and is, accordingly,

¶31

dismissed.

¶32

Appeal dismissed.

¶33

( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) FEBRUARY 21, 2012 JUDGE

¶34

SRM

¶35

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

Nirmal Singh v. Gram Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Singh v. Gram Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nachhattar Singh Vs Dalip Singh

Rajbir Singh Vs Office in Charge, Assam Regiment Centre-Cum Records, Shillong & Anr.

Rc Dutta Vs Fci & Ors.

Swaran Kaur Vs Om Parkash

Sudagar Singh & Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat of Vill. Hoshiarpur & Ors.

Jaswinder Kaur Vs Rattan Singh & Others