JASWANT SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 04.03.2013 (Annexure P/3) passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur and order dated 04.12.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in any manner into the possession of the petitioner. It is further added that on the application under Order 39 Rules Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the Court passed an order dated 16.10.2002 and restrained the defendant -Panchayat not to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly except in due course of law. It is further alleged that respondent no. 1 was elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and he is inimical towards the plaintiff and he in connivance with the other respondents and police party sent by SHO Kalanaur demolished the house of the plaintiff. Against the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC before the trial Court. Vide order dated 04.12.2009 (Annexure P/1), the trial Court dismissed the application. Against the order dated 04.12.2009, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Gurdaspur vide order dated 04.03.2012 (Annexure P/3). Hence, this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(3.) FROM the perusal of the impugned orders, it is apparent that the petitioner has not proved on record the certified copy of order dated 16.10.2002 allegedly violated by the respondents. No circumstance or reason has been explained on record for non proving of said stay order by the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has also miserably failed to prove on record any iota of evidence to the effect that the alleged house was constructed in the land on which stay order was granted. Suit filed by the petitioner against the Gram Panchayat was decreed against the Gram Panchayat. However, the respondent was restrained from interfering into the possession of the petitioner over the suit land except after adopting due course of law. Admittedly, the subject matter was not the ownership of the petitioner. The petitioner and his witnesses admitted this fact that his land was a chapper. AW -1 Manmohan Singh, son of the petitioner admitted in his cross - examination that the respondents removed the encroachment made on the chapper on 14.11.2008. AW 2 examined by the petitioner admitted that many persons were in illegal possession of the property of the Gram Panchayat and on 16.5.2002, the officials of the revenue department had come to the village for demarcation of the land of Mustarka Malkan. He has also admitted that the petitioner including other persons was found in illegal possession of the land of Gram Panchayat. The petitioner has also not denied the fact that he was in illegal possession of the land of the Gram Panchayat. From the cross examination of the petitioner, it has also come on record that the respondent has not demolished the house of the petitioner which was constructed on different khasra numbers. Thus, it is proved that the respondents have not acted in illegal manner and rather executed the orders of their superiors and removed encroachment made by the petitioner on the chapper, property of Gram Panchayat.