GRAM PANCHAYAT BALAD KALAN Vs. AJMER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs Ajmer Singh and Bhaghel Singh instituted suit for permanent injunction against the Gram Panchayat of village, Balad Kalan through its Sarpanch and Naib Tehsildar, Bhawani-garh receiver restraining the latter from auctioning the land, as detailed in the heading of the plaint, situated in village Balad Kalan, by way of lease for the year, 1994-95. It is alleged in the plaint that land in dispute was carved out during consolidation proceedings. It was allotted to Ajmer Singh and Bhaghel Singh by the consolidation Authorities with a view to making up deficiency in their holding. Plaintiffs were taking steps to take its possession. The Gram Panchayat and the Naib Tehsildr, Bhawanigarh (receiver) threatened to auction the land in suit on lease for the year 1994-95 if the said threat gets materialised, plaintiffs interest and right would be jeopardise.

(2.) The Gram Panchayat contested the suit of the plaintiffs urging that the plaintiffs had been allowed other full area in lieu of their preconsolidation land, land in suit is part of shamilat deh. It could not be allotted to the plaintiffs and was not allotted to them. In any case if the alleged allotment is proved, the same is illegal and does not effect the rights of the defendant-Gram Panchayat.

(3.) Plaintiffs' suit was that during consolidation some land was wrongly deducted at the time of allotment of land to the right holders in order to make up deficiency, they filed revision under Section 42, of the Eastr Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (herein after to be referred as Act), which was accepted by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings Punjab, Chandigarh. The Gram Panchayat went in writ to High Court, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, dispute again arose between the defendants and the right holders regarding the possession of the land of the Gram Panchayat including the suit land. SDM, Sangrur attached the land under Sections 145/146, Cr.P.C.land is still under attachment. Land in dispute was distributed by the Consolidation Officer in the month of March, 1994. The possession was to be given to the right holders. Plaintiffs applied for the possession of the land under this said act. On receipt of notice under Section 23(2) of the Act, defendants fixed the date for auctioning of the land by way of lease for the year 1994-95, which they cannot do.