Dismissed

Bishan Singh v. Gram Panchayat Gurdaspur and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Mar 2014RSA/3063/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal regarding a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction concerning village land acquisition, the High Court found no substantial question of law or jurisdictional error in the lower courts. Consequently, the appeal for revision of the dismissal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Bishan Singh Vs Gram Panchayat… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

RSA No. 3063 of 2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No. 3063 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.03.2014

Bishan Singh

.....Appellant

Versus

Gram Panchayat Gurdaspur and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present: Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate

¶12

for the appellant.

¶13

¶14

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.

¶17

Feeling aggrieved, against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned courts below, dismissing his suit for declaration, plaintiff has approached this Court by way of instant regular second appeal.

¶18

Brief facts of the case, as recorded by learned first appellate court in its impugned judgment, are that suit property measuring 14 kanals 18 marals, fully described in head note of the plaint, belongs

¶19

Kumar Amit to Jumla Malkah Ba Digar Hak Daran Arazi Hasab Rasad of the 2014.06.11 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

RSA No. 3063 of 2013 (O&M)

¶21

¶22

village. It has been further alleged that suit property was deducted from the share of the owners of the village and had been left for their own use in the village. The Gram Panchayat i.e. Defendant No.1 had no concern with the same. The Gram Panchayat in connivance with the Revenue Official got recorded wrong entries in its favour. On the other hand, Gram Panchayat was the owner of the land measuring 13 kanals which was reserved during the consolidation for the Gram Panchayat after deducting the land from share of owners. It has been further alleged that defendants No. 2 to 5 had acquired the suit property vide notification dated 21.1.2005, wherein Revenue Authorities had wrongly mentioned the name of Gram Panchayat as owner. Now defendant No.1 is trying to get compensation of land acquired by defendants No. 2 to 5 on the basis of the said wrong entries in its favour. The plaintiff requested defendants No. 2 to 5 to admit the claim but in vain, hence this suit.

¶23

Upon notice, defendants appeared through counsel and contested the suit. Defendant No.1 filed written statement by taking preliminary objections that suit is not maintainable, civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, suit is barred by provisions of res judicata, the suit is bad for non-joinder of Union of India and all the proprietors concerned, that suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. On merits, it has been alleged that suit property was Shamlat Deh which was vested in defendant No.1-Gram Panchayat and the same was not ownership of plaintiffs as alleged. Defendant-Gram Panchayat had been giving the suit land on lease every year in open auction. Once a villager Sukhdev Singh not Kumar Amit 2014.06.11 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

RSA No. 3063 of 2013 (O&M)

¶25

¶26

vacated the suit land after the expiry of its lease period and thus defendant No.1 had approached the DDPO/Collector, who ordered the eviction of Sukhdev Singh after holding that defendant No.1 was the owner of the suit property vide order dated 1.4.2002. The plaintiffs were also aware of this decision as well as title of defendant No.1 on suit land as they had been participating in the auction conducted by defendant No.1.

¶27

Defendant No. 3 filed separate written statement by alleging that compensation for acquired land would be paid to the owner of the suit property, as per rules. Defendant No. 4 and 5 also filed joint written statement by alleging that suit land was owned by Gram Panchayat of village Gurdaspur as per revenue record. The compensation of land would be paid to the owner of the land. The Central Government had only declared its intention to acquire the land in dispute and final notification under Section 13(3) of the National Highway Act, 1956 had not been issued.

¶28

On completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues:-

¶29

“1. Whether the entries in the Revenue Record showing the possession of Gram Panchayat in the column of cultivation have no effect on the rights of the plaintiff and the same are liable to be correct?OPP

¶30

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP

¶31

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the

¶32

Kumar Amit 2014.06.11 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

RSA No. 3063 of 2013 (O&M)

¶34

¶35

permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP

¶36

4. Whether the suit of plaintiffs is not maintainable?OPD

¶37

5. Whether the civil court has got no jurisdictional to entertain and try the present suit? OPD

¶38

6. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by the principle of res judicata?OPD

¶39

7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Union of India?OPD

¶40

8. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their acts &conduct?OPD

¶41

9. Whether no cause of action arose to the plaintiffs to file this suit?OPD

¶42

10. Whether the suit is under valued?OPD

¶43

11.Whether no proper notice under Section 80 of the CPC was served upon the defendants before filing of the present suit?OPD

¶44

12. Relief”

¶45

In order to prove their respective stands taken, both the parties led their evidence. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, learned trial court came to the conclusion that plaintiffs have failed to prove their case. Accordingly, suit was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 7.11.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs filed their first appeal, which also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide impugned judgment and decree dated Kumar Amit 2014.06.11 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

RSA No. 3063 of 2013 (O&M) 5

¶47

19.10.2012. Hence this second appeal.

¶48

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned courts below have misdirected themselves, while completely misreading, misconstruing and misinterpreting the true facts of the case, because of which the impugned judgments and decrees were not sustainable in law. He further submits that there was ample evidence on record to decree the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. Since the learned courts below failed to appreciate the true facts of the case as well as evidence available on record, the impugned judgments and decrees were liable to be set aside. He prays for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees, by allowing the present appeal.

¶49

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short). To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

¶50

A combined reading of both the impugned judgments and decrees rendered by the learned courts below would make it clear that plaintiff-appellant miserably failed to prove his case. In fact, in the given fact situation of the present case, plaintiff-appellant has no case either on facts or in law. Neither the suit was maintainable, nor learned civil court was having any jurisdiction to entertain and try the Kumar Amit 2014.06.11 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

RSA No. 3063 of 2013 (O&M)

¶52

¶53

suit. Suit was also bad for misjoinder for necessary parites. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude the learned courts below have committed no error of law, while passing the impugned judgments and the same deserve to be upheld.

¶54

Before arriving at a judicious conclusion, learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, rightly re-appreciated the factual as well as legal aspect of the matter, with a view to record his own cogent findings in para 19 to 22 of the judgment, relevant part of which, read as under:-

¶55

“ The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that land measuring 14 Kanals 18 marlas acquired by defendants No. 2 to 5 for the construction of four lane road, situated in village Gurdaspur belongs to the plaintiffs and other co-sharers of the village and any entry in the name of Gram Panchayat in the revenue record is wrong and has no effect on the rights of plaintiff, with permanent injunction as consequential relief restraining the defendants not to make any payment of compensation in respect of acquired land in dispute to defendant No.1 except plaintiffs and other co-sharers in village.

¶56

20. By filing present suit plaintiffs have claimed that suit land has not vested in a Panchayat and same belongs to plaintiffs. On the other hand, claim of respondents/defendants is that suit land

¶57

Kumar Amit 2014.06.11 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

RSA No. 3063 of 2013 (O&M)

¶59

¶60

belongs to Gram Panchayat and same is yearly auctioned and amount of auction used to spent for welfare of village community.”

¶61

xx xx xx

¶62

21......So, from the perusal of Sections 11 & 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961 it is clear that plaintiffs can claim their right over the suit property before learned Collector and not before the Civil courts

¶63

22. DW1-Ritu Saini Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat/defendant No.1 has clearly stated the suit property is shamlat Deh property which vests in the village Gram Panchayat. She further stated the DDPO Hoshiarpuse vide order deated 1.4.2002 has evicted one Sukhdev Singh from the suit property and has declared Gram Panchayat as owner of suit land. On the other hand, plaintiffs have claimed that defendant No.1/gram panchayat in connivance with revenue officials got effected wrong entries in column No.5 of the Jamabandi which are wrong and same are liable to be corrected. However, plaintiff has not proved his ownership over the property in dispute. There is no evidence on the file to prove that suit property is ownership of plaintiffs. They have not placed on the file any document which can show that

¶64

Kumar Amit 2014.06.11 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶65

RSA No. 3063 of 2013 (O&M)

¶66

¶67

plaintiffs are owners of suit land. On the other hand, there is copy of jamabandi for the year 200102 on the file which shows that Panchayat Deh is recorded to be owner of the suit property in the column of cultivation. So defendant No.1/gram panchayat being owner of suit land, has rightly claimed compensation qua the land in dispute which has been acquired by the department defendants No.2 to 5 for the extension of road. As such, findings of learned lower court on issues No. 1 to 3 are upheld.

¶68

It is also a matter of record that the suit land was being put to public auction by the respondent-Gram Panchayat with a view to lease out the land. Plaintiffs were fully aware about this material fact. Further, plaintiffs were supposed to stand on their own legs by taking appropriate pleadings and prove the same by leading cogent evidence. However, they failed to do so in the present case. Further, in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, simple suit for declaration without seeking any consequential relief of possession was not even maintainable. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that learned courts below proceeded on a factually correct and legally justified approach, while passing the impugned judgments and the same deserve to be upheld.

¶69

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on the record of the case, in either of the impugned Kumar Amit 2014.06.11 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶70

¶71

RSA No. 3063 of 2013 (O&M)

¶72

judgments passed by both the learned courts below. He also failed to put into service any substantive argument, so as to convince this Court to take a different view than the one taken by the learned courts below. Further, no question of law much less substantial question of law has been found involved in the present case, which is sine qua non for interference at the hands of this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.

¶73

No other argument was raised.

¶74

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.

¶75

Resultantly, instant second appeal stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

¶76

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶77

10.3.2014 AK Sharma

¶78

Kumar Amit 2014.06.11 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶79

RSA No. 3063 of 2013 (O&M)

¶80

¶81

C.M. No. 8162-63-C of 2013 in RSA No. 3063 of 2013

¶82

Bishan Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat Gurdaspur and others

¶83

Present: Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant.

¶84

¶85

C.M. No. 8162-C of 2013

¶86

Applicant seeks condonation of delay of 105 days in re-filing the appeal. Application is supported by an affidavit.

¶87

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and for the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and delay of 105 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

¶88

C.M.stands disposed of.

¶89

C.M. No. 8163-C of 2013

¶90

Applicant seeks condonation of delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. Application is supported by an affidavit.

¶91

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and for the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and delay of 45 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶92

C.M. stands disposed of.

¶93

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶94

10.3.2014 AK Sharma

¶95

Kumar Amit 2014.06.11 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Bishan Singh v. Gram Panchayat Gurdaspur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishan Singh v. Gram Panchayat Gurdaspur and Ors.

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

Makhan Singh Vs Surender

Randhir and Ors. Vs Parsani Devi & Ors.

Secretary Education Department Pb. Chd. etc. Vs Joginder Kaur

Hans Raj Vs Kanta Devi and Ors.

State of Punjab & Ors. Vs Kartar Singh Brar

(O&M) National Insurance Company Vs Sukhbir Singh and Ors.