GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE SOHIAN KALAN Vs. MAJOR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of RSA No.708 of 2015 and COCP No.2782 of 2019 as decision of RSA has material bearing for decision of COCP No.2782 of 2019. For facility of reference, facts are taken from RSA No.708 of 2015.

(2.) Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against judgment and decree dated 15.12.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar whereby appeal against judgment and decree dated 03.09.2013 passed by the trial Court partly decreeing suit of the respondents/plaintiffs was allowed, findings on the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court were set aside and the respondents/plaintiffs as well as performa defendants Nos.5 to 8 were declared to be owners in possession of suit land and order passed by defendant No.3 therein was declared as illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction etc. The facts relevant for disposal of appeal are that respondents/plaintiffs staked claim to suit land measuring 31 kanal 19 marlas, detailed in para 2 of the judgment of trial Court on the allegations that the same was owned by jumla mustarka malkan. Dalip Singh, father of the plaintiffs and defendants No.5 to 8 was in possession of the suit property. He filed petition for consolidation of holdings before the Consolidation Authorities under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act'), decided by Surat Singh, Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar on 12.05.1986. The suit property was allotted to Dalip Singh and mutation No.6255 was sanctioned Mahinder Singh filed appeal against the said order which was rejected by the Additional Director, Consolidation Holding, Punjab, Chandigarh. After death of Dalip Singh, mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of plaintiffs, defendants No.5 to 8 and Gurdip Kaur, widow of the deceased. After death of Gurdip Kaur, she has been succeeded by the plaintiffs and defendants No.5 to 8 and they have become owners in possession of suit property and their names were duly incorporated in the revenue records. It is further averred that in the year 2002, defendant No.1 filed an application under Section 7 and 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short '1961 Act') against Dalip Singh though the Gram Panchayat had no right, title or interest in the suit property. The application was accepted vide order dated 26.02.2010 and Gram Panchayat village Sohian Kalan was declared to be owner of the suit land. However, application under Section 7 for eviction of Sh. Sh. Dalip Singh was withdrawn. The order was challenged being wrong, null and void and without jurisdiction.

(3.) Having heard counsel for the parties in the light of materials on record, the trial Court answered issue No.4 with regard to jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide qua title to the suit land against the respondents but allowed their prayer restraining the defendants from dispossessing plaintiffs and defendants No.5 to 8 from suit land except in due course of law. As has been noticed hereinbefore, the decree passed by the trial Court was modified by the Court in appeal and suit of the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed in toto.