Kishan Chand & ORS. v. Gram Panchayat Pranpura & ORS.

-1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision.20.05.2019 Kishan Chand and others ...Appellants Vs Gram Panchayat Pranpura, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari and others

...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) The short point involved in the present appeal is whether the appellants-plaintiffs can be permitted to claim declaration to be owners in possession of land described in the plaint and as mentioned in Annexure 1 to Annexure 54 i.e. Ex.P-67 to Ex.P120 by denying title of the Gram Panchayat along with permanent injunction in a civil suit, in view of the embargo under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 as applicable to Haryana, the answer would be 'NO'.

Mr. Ajay Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the trial Court though decreed the suit, the lower Appellate Court has erroneously reversed the finding being a jurisdictional error but the fact of the matter is that jurisdiction to grant injunction qua forcible interference and dispossession is always of a Civil Court. In support of aforementioned, relied upon judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jhagru Ram Vs. Jagan and others 2010 (4) PLR 605.

-2He further pointed out that earlier in proceedings initiated by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 against few persons, it was found that land belonged to them and the aforementioned proceedings were set aside but said order is not part and parcel of the record. Scope of Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is very wide, which cannot take away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court if action of other party is so imminent of forcible dispossession. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, appraised paper book and of view there is no force and merit. It would be apt to reproduce Section 13A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations Act), which is as under:- "13A. Adjudication.

Provided that no suit shall lie under this section in respect of the land or other immovable property, which is or has been the subject matter of the proceedings under section 7 of this Act under which the

-3question of title has been raised and decided or under adjudication.

(2) The procedure for deciding the suits under subsection (1) shall be the same as laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908).

From the perusal of Section 13A, it manifest that competent officer/authority is enjoined an obligation to deal with the controversy in same manner as part of a Civil Court. Once the authority has trappings of Civil court, it will not be denuded to pass any injunction order. There is no dispute to the ratio decidendi culled out in Jhagru Ram's case (supra), that was a case where on account of encroachment of public passage during the pendency of the suit, injunction was, in peculiar circumstances, granted. In view of aforementioned circumstances, judgment and decree rendered by lower Appellate Court cannot be said to be suffering from illegality and perversity, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 20, 2019 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No