NAFE SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this revision petition are that five petitioners who are proprietors in Panna Kalian at village Sandal Kalan, Tehsil and District Sonepat, instituted a suit for permanent injunction in representative capacity, representing the entire body of proprietors of Panna Kalian under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was filed against State of Haryana, Divisional Forest Officer and the Gram Panchayat of Village Sandal Kalan. It was averred that the plaintiffs as also other proprietors of the Panna were owners in possession of land measuring 501 Kanals 4 Marlas as per details mentioned in the plaint. About 14 years before the institution of the suit, the said proprietors mutually partitioned the land and had been in actual physical possession and cultivating the land since then. The aforesaid facts have been confirmed in a decree dated March 9, 1990, passed in Civil Suit No. 16 of 1990 by the Subordinate Judge, III Class, Sonepat. The defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs and other proprietors. Their apparent purpose was to make pits in the land and to grow tree therein. According to plaintiffs, the defendants had no right to interfere in the plaintiffs possession and hence the suit for permanent injunction. Along with the suit an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was made. The suit as well as the application were contested. In the written statement filed by the Divisional Forest Officer on behalf of defendants 1 and 2. It was stated that the question involved in the present dispute was whether the land in question is Shamlat Deh or not and jurisdiction of the Civil Court was expressly barred by virtue of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. On merits, it was denied that the plaintiffs were owners or in possession of the land in dispute. It was pleaded that the Gram Panchayat was the owner in possession of the land in dispute and the same was Banjar Kadim and had been reserved as Charand. With regard to the decree dated March 9, 1990. It was stated that the Gram Panchayat had filed a suit seeking the setting aside of the aforesaid decree. In that suit, on the application of the Gram Panchayat, the trial Court had granted a temporary injunction against the plaintiffs and other proprietors of Panna Kalian, restraining them from interfering in the possession of the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat had decided to grow jungle on the land in dispute and had, therefore, passed the necessary resolution requesting defendant No. 2 to undertake the work of plantation for the ultimate benefit of the village community. Written statement broadly on the same lines was filed on behalf of the Gram Panchayat defendant No. 3.

(2.) AFTER considering the documents on record and Hearing counsel for the parties; the learned trial Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction by order dated November 26, 1990. The petitioner's appeal against the order of the trial Court was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on August 8, 1991. In this revision petition both the orders of the trial Court as well as of the Additional District Judge have been assailed.

(3.) MR . Ramesh Hooda, learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat, as well as Mr. S. K. Kapoor, AAG, Haryana, for respondents 1 and 2, referred to the same Jamabandi in which except for a very small portion the land in dispute is entered as "banjar Kadim Charand". They also referred to copy of the relevant entry of Sharat Wajib-Ul-Arz, according to which at the time of consolidation no Shamlat Deh was available in the village. The land of which details are mentioned therein was ear-marked for Charand from out of Shamlat Panna Kalian and Shamlat Panna Marar. It was also submitted that the land in dispute is clearly covered under Sub-clause (1) of Shamlat Deh as defined in Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961, because the land is described in the revenue records as Charand. It was further argued that even if the land is taken to have been described in the revenue records as Shamlat Panna, the same would be covered under Sub-clause (3) of Clause (g) aforesaid, in that the land according to the revenue records was being used for the benefit of the village community as grazing ground for the cattle. The land was also covered under Sub-clause (5) of Clause (g) because it was described in the revenue record as Banjar Kadim and was used for common purposes of the village according to that record.