GRAM PANCHAYAT DUNDAHERA Vs. PREM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is decree-holder's petition, whose execution application has been dismissed, vide impugned order dated 7.10.1978 of the executing Court.

(2.) Gram Panchayat, Dundahera, brought a suit against Prem Dass etc. in the year 1956 for seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants who were the predecessors-in-interest of the present judgment- debtors, except Ram Mehar, from interfering in the possession of the decree- holder in any manner as well as from raising construction on a piece of land, alleging that the land in question was given to Mahant Gulab Dass as Dholi and he had no right to transfer the same in any manner to other defendants and, as Mahant Gulab Dass transferred the same to defendants Nos. 2 to 5, therefore the decree-holder was entitled to the possession of the suit land. - The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit, vide judgment dated 31.1.1958. The appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 23.1.1959. The regular second appeal filed by the defendants in this Court was dismissed as having abated, vide order dated 17.1.1969. The decree-holder then filed application for execution. The said application was resisted by Ram Mehar, one of the judgment-debtors, who by way of an objection-petition alleged that the objectors have their houses on the land in question for the last 60 years and, as the land was Dholi-tenure, therefore, the Panchayat decree-holder had no authority to initiate any proceedings in respect of the land in question. It was also pleaded that the civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter in question as the decree was passed without jurisdiction. This objection-petition was contested on behalf of the decree-holder. The trial Court framed the issues and came to the conclusion that, in view of the provisions of section 4(3)(i) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the decree was no more executable. It was also held that the decree- holder filed an execution-application earlier, which was dismissed in default and, therefore, the present execution-application was not maintainable. Dissatisfied with the same, the decree holder filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-decree-holder contended that all the objections now taken by the judgment-debtors were taken in the suit itself and were negatived by the Courts below. It was further argued that section 4(3)(i) of the Act does not help the judgment-debtors. Earlier in the Act of 1954, there was section 5 which provided: