(O&M) Gram Panchayat Dhani Khanbahad v. Krishan Kumar Etc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Gram Panchayat Dhani Khanbahadur . . . . Appellant Vs.

Krishan Kumar and Others . . . . Respondents ****

Reserved on: 15.01.2026

Pronounced on: 22.01.2026 Pronounced fully/opera;ve part: Fully ****

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate and Ms. Nandini Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pooja Sareen, Advocate for the respondents. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present second appeal has been preferred by defendantGram Panchayat against the judgment & decree dated 21.11.1997 passed by the learned First Appellate Court of Addi0onal District Judge, Hisar, whereby the appeal filed by the plain0ffs (respondents herein) was allowed, reversing the judgment of the trial Court of senior Sub-Judge, Hisar dated 08.11.1994, and the suit for declara0on and consequen0al relief of permanent injunc0on was decreed. 2.

In order to avoid confusion, par0es are being referred to as per their status before the trial Court. The record of the trial Court, as available on the DMS, has been perused.

3.1 According to the plain0ffs, their father, late Shri Kulwant Rai, had been a tenant in cul0va0ng possession of the suit land for more than 35 years. A=er his death on 11.03.1985, the Gram Panchayat, which is the recorded

owner of the land, conducted auc0on proceedings on 06.04.1985. The plain0ffs have assailed the said auc0on as null, illegal and void, contending that upon the demise of their father, they inherited his tenancy rights and con0nued to remain in possession of the suit land. It is their case that on the strength of the impugned auc0on proceedings, defendant No.1-Gram Panchayat, in collusion with defendants No.2 to 4, in whose favour the auc0on was held, started interfering in their possession.

3.2 It was further pleaded that far back in the year 1978, the Gram Panchayat had a?empted to dispossess the plain0ffs' father. Kulwant Rai had filed a civil suit for injunc0on, which was decreed in the year 1983. In the said judgment, he was held to be a tenant in possession of the suit land and it was specifically directed that he could be dispossessed only in due course of law. Therea=er, the Gram Panchayat ini0ated ejectment proceedings against him under Sec0on 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Hisar, which, according to the plain0ffs, were s0ll pending. It is alleged that taking undue advantage of the death of Kulwant Rai, the Gram Panchayat proceeded to auc0on the suit land. 3.3 On these averments, the suit was ins0tuted on 10.04.

1985 seeking a declara0on that the plain0ffs along with the proforma defendants are tenants in possession of the suit land, as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, for the last more than 35 years, and that the auc0on proceedings conducted by the Gram Panchayat on 06.04.1985 are illegal, null and void. Consequen0al relief of permanent injunc0on was also sought to restrain defendants No.1 to 4 from interfering in the plain0ffs' possession on the basis of the said auc0on. 4.

The suit was contested by defendants No.1 to 4, who denied the plain0ffs' claim of tenancy. It was contended that although Kulwant Rai was earlier in possession of the suit land, such possession was unauthorized. It was further pleaded that upon his death, the Gram Panchayat lawfully resumed possession of the land and that no tenancy rights devolved upon the plain0ffs or pro-

forma defendants. It was asserted that the Gram Panchayat, through an open auc0on held on 06.04.1985, leased out the suit land to defendants No.2 to 4 for a period of one year, who were therea=er in lawful possession as tenants. On these grounds, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 5.

In rejoinder, the plain0ffs reiterated the averments made in the plaint and controverted the stand taken by the defendants. They further pleaded that along with the ins0tu0on of the suit on 10.04.1985, an applica0on for temporary injunc0on was filed, whereupon an interim ex parte injunc0on was granted on the same date restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession of the suit land. The said order was subsequently confirmed on 25.09.1985. It was further alleged that despite the subsistence of the injunc0on order, the plain0ffs were forcibly dispossessed by the Gram Panchayat during the pendency of the suit. Consequently, an applica0on dated 28.05.1986 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC was moved by the plain0ffs seeking restora0on of possession and ini0a0on of contempt proceedings against the defendants. 6.

A=er framing the necessary issues, the par0es were afforded adequate opportunity to lead evidence, which was duly taken on record. Upon apprecia0on of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court returned a categorical finding that the father of the plain0ffs was in possession of the suit land as a tenant and that, upon his death, the plain0ffs had inherited the tenancy rights. However, the Trial Court further held that the plain0ffs had already been dispossessed from the suit land prior to the ins0tu0on of the suit. On that premise, it was concluded that a suit for simpliciter injunc0on was not maintainable, as the Gram Panchayat had allegedly come into possession of the suit land before the filing of the suit. On the basis of these findings on the material issues, the suit was dismissed vide judgment & decree dated 08.11.1994 by the LAC.

7.1 On appeal filed by the plain0ffs, the learned First Appellate Court, upon a comprehensive re-apprecia0on of the en0re oral and documentary evi-

dence, reversed the trial court finding. The Appellate Court examined the revenue record since beginning 0ll the latest jamabandis and girdawaris, which consistently reflected the possession of Kulwant Rai as gair maurusi. It also relied upon the earlier judgment dated 12.12.1983, wherein Kulwant Rai's possession as tenant stood judicially recognised. The Appellate Court further found, as a ma?er of fact, that the Gram Panchayat had not taken possession by adop0ng any lawful procedure prescribed under the Punjab Village Common Land Act and that the auc0on proceedings were resorted to as a short-cut method to oust the plain0ffs, par0cularly during the pendency of injunc0on orders. 7.

2 It has been specifically found that the plain0ffs were dispossessed during the pendency of the suit and despite the subsistence of interim protec0on granted by the civil Court. The Appellate Court has also recorded a clear finding that the ejectment proceedings under Sec0on 7 of the Act remained pending 0ll July 1986, which itself belies the stand of the Gram Panchayat that possession had lawfully reverted to it immediately upon the death of Kulwant Rai.

7.3 Accordingly, suit was decreed and mandatory injunc0on was also granted in favour of the plain0ffs so as to restore their possession. 8.

Against the aforesaid reversal, this appeal has been filed by the defendant Gram Panchayat. It is contended that well-reasoned judgment of the trial court has been wrongly reversed by the appellate court by mis-apprecia0ng the evidence on record.

9.

On the other hand, Ld. Senior Advocate for the respondents urged that there was no scope for interference in the impugned judgment of the appellate court. 10.

Having considered the submissions and the trial court record, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal.

11.

The core controversy between the par0es pertain to the auc0on proceedings dated 06.04.1985 conducted by the Gram Panchayat and the consequen0al dispossession of the plain0ffs. 12.

The legal posi0on with regard to inheritance of tenancy is well se?led. Tenancy rights, unless expressly excluded by statute, are heritable. No provision has been pointed out by the appellant-Gram Panchayat which would ex0nguish the tenancy upon death of the tenant without recourse to due process. The First Appellate Court has rightly held that upon the demise of Kulwant Rai, his tenancy rights automa0cally devolved upon the plain0ffs and proforma defendants. Consequently, the Gram Panchayat could not dispossess them except by following the procedure prescribed under law. 13.

Equally well se?led is the principle that even a true owner cannot dispossess a person in se?led possession except in accordance with law. Where dispossession takes place during pendency of the suit, or in viola0on of subsisting judicial orders, the civil Court is not powerless to restore possession and grant mandatory injunc0on so as to restore status quo ante. The Appellate Court has correctly applied this principle while gran0ng the relief of restora0on of possession.

14.

Ld. Counsel for the appellant i.e. panchayat could not convince this court that possession of the suit land was taken from the plain0ffs in accordance with law, as mandated by the judicial verdict of 1983. 15.

This Court finds that the reasoning adopted by the First Appellate Court is legally sound and firmly rooted in evidence. These findings are purely factual, based on contemporaneous revenue entries, judicial records, and admissions emerging from the defendants' own evidence. The reversal of the trial Court judgment is not based on reappraisal of evidence in a casual manner, but on a correct apprecia0on of se?led legal principles governing tenancy, inheritance, and unlawful dispossession. The trial Court commi?ed a clear error in de-

clining relief despite recording findings in favour of the plain0ffs on tenancy and possession. The Appellate Court has merely corrected that error. 16.

In a second appeal, interference is permissible only where a substan0al ques0on of law arises. The appellant-Gram Panchayat has not been able to demonstrate any perversity, misreading of evidence, or incorrect applica0on of law by the First Appellate Court. The findings recorded are findings of facts, supported by evidence, and do not give rise to any substan0al ques0on of law within the meaning of Sec0on 100 of CPC.

17.

Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the wellreasoned judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court. The present second appeal is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 21.11.1997 passed by the First Appellate Court are thereby affirmed.

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 22.01.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes Whether reportable?

No Uploaded on.: 22.01.2026