JANG SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal. A suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaratory decree to the effect that order dated 18.9.1977 passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer-exercising the powers of Collector, Ropar ordering ejectment of the plaintiff from the suit land and order dated 24.8.2001 passed by the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Punjab Government, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab were illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction and had no binding effect on him was dismissed by the trial Court. It was claimed by the plaintiff that he was in possession of the land in dispute and even prior to January 26, 1950, the said land was in possession of his predecessors. On behalf of the defendant, it was claimed that the defendant-Gram Panchayat was the owner of the suit property and the plaintiff was in illegal possession of the same and the suit property had been kept reserved for common purposes of the village.

(2.) The rival contentions gave rise to various issues. Trial Court on appreciation of evidence held that after passing of the ejectment order against the plaintiff by the Collector Ropar, he had got no locus standi to file the present suit for declaration challenging the said order. It was observed that a person who is in illegal possession of a property had no right to protect his possession by resorting to his remedy before the Civil Court. The lower appellate Court affirmed these findings and went ahead in observing that the plaintiff had failed to prove on record that the land in dispute was a bachat land. The appeal was consequently dismissed. Application filed by the plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for placing on record the revenue record before the lower appellate Court was also dismissed as the same was found to be devoid of any merit.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the findings recorded by the Courts below are wrong and the evidence led on his behalf was not properly appreciated. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-Gram Panchayat contended that the property is vested with the Gram Panchayat and ejectment order Exhibit D-1 was legal and valid and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.