LABH SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging order dated 8.4.2005 passed by the LD. District Judge, Sangrur upholding the view taken by the LD. Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sangrur in his order dated 14.6.2004. Both the Courts below have dismissed the application of the plaintiff -petitioner filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in which prayer was made to restrain the defendant -respondent from interfering in his peaceful possession.

(2.) The plaintiff -petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant -respondent from interfering in his peaceful possession or dispossessing him from the land described in the head note of the plaint. It was further claimed that defendant -respondent Gram Panchayat has no concern with the suit land and that the plaintiff -petitioner is khewatdar/proprietor of the village as the land described in the revenue record is Jumla Mushatarka Malkan Ba Deegar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat. Along with the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was filed which has been dismissed. Both the Courts below have found that the land has been given on lease by the defendant -respondent in the years 1994, 1995 and 1997 to one Hazura Singh. In the years 2000 and 2001 the land was leased out to the brother of the plaintiff -petitioner Gulab Singh. The land was further leased to one Gurdarshan Singh in the year 2003 and again to Gulab Singh, brother of the plaintiff -petitioner in the year 2004.

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff -petitioner has argued that once the land is shown to be Jumla Mushatarka Malkan Ba Deegar Haqdaran Hasab Resad Raqba Khewat then it has to be presumed that the owners of the land are proprietor of the village and not the defendant -respondent. According to the learned counsel the plaintiff -petitioner is in possession as has been admitted by the defendant -respondent Gram Panchayat in an application filed before the District Development and Panchayat Officer under Sec. 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for brevity the Act') wherein it is alleged that the plaintiff -petitioner is in possession of the land for the last about one year. The afore -mentioned application has been filed on 31.3.2005. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Kashmir Singh v/s. Gram Panchayat Village Dhidowal, 2002(3) L.J.R. 85.