BABU RAM Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-petitiners has assailed lower appellate Court's order dated September 4, 1995, whereby injunction order passed in plaintiff's favour is set aside.

(2.) IN a nutshell, facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering in any manner or demolishing the boundary walls of his house shown in the site plan attached with the plaint. His contention is that he has constructed this house along with the boundary walls 20/25 years ago. In the last election as he opposed the Sarpanch of the defendant-Gram Panchayat there is a political rivalry between the two and motivated by that rivalry Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat defendant-respondent is threatening to demolish the boundary wall and constructed rooms forcibly and illegally. Therefore, he filed a petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for restraining the defendant- respondent from demolishing the constructed house or boundary wall.

(3.) ON these facts the trial Court granted injunction order in plaintiff's favour, but in appeal the lower appellate Court set aside that order holding that except the site plan the plaintiff-petitioner could not file any document to show his title over the disputed property. In the copy of jamabandi for the years 1992-93 Khasra No. 48 is shown as Shamlat and Gair Mumkin Chhappar. Similarly, Khasra No. 57 is shown as Gair Mumkin Rasta. The lower appellate Court also held that the defendant-Gram Panchayat got the demarcation done from the revenue authorities. From the report of demarcation dated June 16, 1993, it is evident that the plaintiff has encroached upon Khasra Nos. 48 and 57. As per the entries in the jamabandi, these Khasra numbers are property of Gram Panchayat as they are recorded as Shamlat Deh and Mushtarka Malkan. Hence the lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff has no legal right to remain in possession of the disputed property. It also repelled this contention that even if the plaintiff-petitioner is to be treated as a trespasser, he cannot be ejected forcibly on the ground that the defendant-Gram Panchayat is proceeding in accordance with law to dispossess him, as proceedings are being taken under the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.