PIRBHU Vs. MEHTAB SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment of the first Appellate Court dated 18.1.2007. The facts of the case are to be noticed to appreciate the controversy:- The appellant was having a house in a village. In dispute was Khasra No. 129 which was a village Johar. Respondent No. 4 Gram Panchayat of the village initiated proceedings against the appellant under the provisions of Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land Regulation Act by pleading that he is in unauthorised occupation of Khasra No. 129, which is a village Johar. On the direction of the Asstt. Collector, Rohtak demarcation was got done which was to the satisfaction of both the parties and was unrebutted as no objection was preferred by either of the parties. The Asstt. Collector, Rohtak passed an order dated 14.6.1993, the relevant extract of which reads as under:

(2.) An appeal was carried against this order before the Collector, Rohtak by three persons namely, Karan Singh, Ex-Panch, Tarachand and Raj Singh, Panch of Gram Panchayat, Dabodha Khurd. The Gram Panchayat Dabodha Khurd as an entity was also impleaded as respondent in these proceedings. The Collector concluded that the appellant was in possession of only 1 marla of land i.e. 4 karam in the east, 4 karam in the west and 4 karam in the south and ordered the ejectment of the appellant from this portion. It was observed on the basis of the report of the Local Commissioner that the appellant had encroached upon this area by placing mud. The relevant portion of the order of the Collector dated 19.4.1994 is reproduced below:

(3.) The appellant was being threatened with demolition of his house and he filed the instant suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession over the house and from demolishing the same. He pleaded that the respondents are threatening to demolish the house in the garb of executing the orders of the Collector dated 19.4.1994. The respondents contesed the suit and denied the ownership of the appellant and pleaded that he has illegally encroached upon the land of the Gram Panchayat and the competent court has ordered the eviction of the appellant from the said area. They disputed the site plan and denied that the house was ancestral but the proceedings before the Asstt. Collector and Collector were admitted to be a part of the record. In short, the defence was raised that the demolition which was sought for is justified and that the orders of the revenue authorities had become final.