Dismissed

Avtar Singh v. Gram Panchayat and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Feb 2018RSA/6038/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal against a reversal of a suit for declaration of title and possession, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that no substantial question of law arose. The court found no ground for interference as the lower Appellate Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction barring the Civil Court under the Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed with no interference in the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court.

Avtar Singh Vs Gram Panchayat and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.6038 of 2017

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.6038 of 2017 Date of Decision.26.02.2018

Avtar Singh

......Appellant

Gram Panchayat Village Bhangwan and another ........Respondents

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Bhawesh Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

-.-

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)

¶13

The regular second appeal is directed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2017 rendered by the lower Appellate Court whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit, has been reversed.

¶14

The appellant-plaintiff instituted the suit claiming declaration that he had become owner in possession of the land measuring 15 marals comprising in Khasra No.40//4/1/3, khata and khatauni No.475/470, Hadbast No.159 situated at village Bhangwan, Tehsil and District Amritsar challenging the entries in the revenue record in column No.3 in the name of defendant No.1 w.e.f. 1970-71 being invalid, illegal and null and void. The plaintiff pleaded that the aforementioned land during the consolidation was allotted to Charan Singh, his father and Hazara Singh, who had been shown owner of the suit land in column No.9 since 1971-72. Charan Singh, father of the plaintiff died in 1972 and after his death, the plaintiff and his real brother i.e. another son of Charan Singh namely Balkar Singh became owners in possession of the suit property in equal shares being his legal PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.03.06 16:11 heirs. Thereafter, an oral family settlement/agreement was entered and as I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

RSA No.6038 of 2017 -2-

¶16

per the family settlement, the plaintiff alone had become owner in possession of the property. The possession of the plaintiff had been continuous, uninterrupted, legal and known to everybody. The defendants did not have any title or interest in the suit property but still threatened the plaintiff to interfere into his peaceful possession and to dispossess him forcibly and illegally, therefore, necessity arose to claim the aforementioned declaration and injunction qua forcible and illegal dispossession.

¶17

Upon notice, the aforementioned suit was contested taking the preliminary objections qua maintainability of the suit, much less, jurisdiction of the trial Court in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961 as applicable to Punjab. The factum of allotment of suit land to Charan Singh and Hazara Singh was also denied. It was stated that the defendants had already initiated proceedings of eviction under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act and filing of the suit was nothing but a counter-blast to the aforementioned proceedings.

¶18

The trial Court after noticing the aforementioned fact and the evidence brought on record, decreed the suit but the lower Appellate Court in appeal preferred by the Gram Panchayat challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court, reversed the finding of the trial Court, hence second appeal.

¶19

Mr. Bhawesh Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the documentary evidence as noticed by the trial Court i.e. Ex.P1 jamabandi for the year 1966-67, Ex.P2 jambandi for the year 1966-67, Ex.P3 jamabandi for the year 1971-72, Ex.P4 jamabandi for the year 1971-72, Ex.P5 jamabandi for the year 1971-72, Ex.P6

¶20

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.03.06 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

RSA No.6038 of 2017 -3-

¶22

jamabandi for the year 1976-77, Ex.P7 jamabandi for the year 1981-82, Ex.P8 jamabandi for the year 1986-87, Ex.P9 jamabandi for the year 199192, Ex.P10 jamabandi for the year 1996-97, Ex.P11 jamabandi and subsequent jamabandies showed that the plaintiff had been in continuous possession of the suit property and on the basis of the aforementioned fact, the trial Court found that in column No.9, there is reflection of Charan Singh to be owner in possession of the suit land as basra malak. However, the lower Appellate Court reversed the finding in a most capricious and erroneous manner by holding that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act. In fact, the Gram Panchayat had denied the ownership of the plaintiff, which necessitated the plaintiff to institute the suit. Entries in the jamabandi for the year 1966-67 proved ownership in favour of Charan Singh, thus, there is illegality and perversity.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, appraised the paper book and of the view that as per provisions of Section 11 and 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act as applicable to the State of Punjab, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court vis-a-vis title of the property is expressly barred. Filing of the petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act seeking eviction of the plaintiff had not been disputed/controverted. There was a stray entry in column No.9 of the jamabandi for the year 1970-71. In fact, as per Ex.P3 i.e. jamabandi for the year 1971-72, the property had been shown in the name of Gram Panchayat. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to discharge the onus with regard to allotment. The revenue record only showed that Charan Singh had been paying rent to the concerned department, who died in the year 1972. All

¶24

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.03.06 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

RSA No.6038 of 2017

¶26

-4-

¶27

these facts have been looked into by the lower Appellate Court, much less, passing of the eviction order has not been denied.

¶28

In view of the aforementioned, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court as the same is based upon correct appreciation of fact and law, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. The second appeal stands dismissed.

¶29

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE February 26, 2018 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No

¶30

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.03.06 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Avtar Singh v. Gram Panchayat and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avtar Singh v. Gram Panchayat and Anr.

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

Hardev Singh Vs Amar Kaur & Ors.

Food Corporation of India Vs Gurdial Kaur (Now Deceased) Thru Lrs. Sumandeep Singh and Ors.

Rakesh Garg Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Bijender Singh and Otrs Vs Mahinder

Gurpreet Singh Vs Chamkaur Singh etc.

Pala Singh & Ors. Vs Charanjit Singh