RATTAN SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT CHHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Petition Nos. 5713, 5709, 5747 and 5748 of 2004 as common question of law and facts have arisen in all these petitions. Facts are being referred from C.R. No. 5713 of 2004 which challenges order dated 2-9-2004 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar and the order dated 17-10-2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) has declined the application of the plaintiff-petitioners for issuance of interim directions to the respondent-Gram Panchayat for restraining them to take possession of the suit land in pursuant to the warrant of possession issued by Assistant Collector 1st Grade. Hansi. The warrant of possession has been issued on an application under S. 7(1)(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) which has been filed by respondent-Gram Panchayat. The order passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, has been upheld by the learned Addl. District Judge, by his order dated 19-10-2004.

(2.) Both the Courts below after detailed consideration have recorded a finding that nothing has been brought on record by the plaintiff-petitioners showing that they were owners in possession of the suit property. It has further been held that long unauthorised continuous possession of the land belonging to Gram Panchayat cannot give any right of ownership to the petitioners, nor any injunction order could be granted to them. Bolh (he Courts have also dealt with the maintainability of the application under S. 7(1) of the Act before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hansi and other objections. A reference has also been made to an order dated 24-4-1990 Annexure P-1 which has been passed on an application under S. 7(2)(1) of the Act showing that the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat suffered a statement before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hansi by stating that the Gram Panchayat had taken double of the land from the petitioner in lieu of the suit land and he did not want to proceed with the application filed before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. I find that the view taken by both the Courts below does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference under Art. 227 of the Constitution. The learned counsel has not been able to substantiate the fact that two times the land has been given by the plaintiff-petitioner in lieu of the suit land belonging to the Gram Panchayat as has been envisaged by order dated 24-4-1980 (Annexure P-1). It is appropriate to mention that the aforementioned order was passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hansi when the then Sarpanch had suffered the following statement :-