BALBIR SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit property and the entries in the revenue record are incorrect and liable to be rectified along with the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering into his possession over the suit land and dispossessing him therefrom except in due course of law, has been dismissed. In nutshell, case of the plaintiff-appellant is that he is owner in possession of land measuring 4 Kanals 9 Marlas comprised of Rect. No. 19, Killa No. 8/2 situated at village Karia Pehlwan, Tehsil and District Ferozepur, as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1978-79. It is alleged that the said land was kept as Bachat land along with some other land of the village, total measuring 174 Kanals 2 Marlas including the suit land. It is further alleged that earlier this land was in possession of Sohan Singh, his father, and thereafter he is recorded in possession of the same and the said land is not the ownership of the Gram Panchayat, which has no concern with the same; whereas entries made, in the revenue record in the name of "Jumla Mushtarka Malkan" were changed in the name of defendant, which is illegal. It is further alleged that the land in dispute never remained in possession of the defendant rather the plaintiff is in possession of the same since long. Since the defendant-respondents are strong persons, they are trying to interfere in his possession over the suit property and are threatening to dispossess him, and thus, necessity arose to file the instant suit.

(2.) Defendant-respondent contested the suit raising various preliminary objections. It was submitted that the Gram Panchayat is owner of the suit property. The Gram Panchayat is leasing out the suit land every year, however the appellant has filed the instant suit to protect his illegal possession as he has occupied the suit land illegally on 13.06.2008 and since he is an unauthorized occupant of the suit land, no injunction can be issued against the defendants, who are the true owners of the land in dispute, and thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: