GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. LAKHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been directed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated August 9, 1979 of the learned District Judge, Patiala, whereby appeal preferred by Lakha Singh plaintiff was accepted, judgment and decree, dated April 1, 1978 of the trial Court were set aside and his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him otherwise than in due course of law was decreed with costs of both the Courts.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Lakha Singh instituted a suit in the trial Court at Rajpura alleging that suit land was allotted to him and Sanad allotment was granted to him, that possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1055 and 1056 min. was delivered to him on October 30, 1975 and report in the Roznamcha Waqiati of the Patwari was duly entered; and that defendants be restrained from dispossessing him otherwise than in due course of law.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. The learned counsel for the appellants referred to the Jamabandi for the year 1971-72, Exhibit P3, and pointed out that the land in suit is recorded to be shamilat deh in the column of ownership and in possession of bashindgan deh. He also referred to the Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 1972 to Kharif 1975, Exhibit D3, and argued that entries made therein also go to show that suit land is shamilat deh and it has been shown to be in possession of bas indgan deh from Kharif 1972 up to Kharif 1975 and the names of the respondents do not figure anywhere in the revenue record. According to the learned counsel, as per Rapat No. 86, dated October 30, 1975, possession of the suit land was delivered to the respondent, but on the application made by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chamaru in pursuance of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Rajpura, an enquiry was held by the Naib-Tehsildar who reported that the land in question was being used by the inhabitants of Village Chamaru and it did not appear that it was ploughed or was in possession of anybody. On the basis of this report of the Naib-Tehsildar, Rapat No. 86 dated October 30, 1975, Exhibit PI, was cancelled and to that effect Rapat No. 241, dated February 10, 1976 was recorded in the Roznamcha of the Patwari. On these premises the learned counsel submitted that from the documentary evidence, it is clearly proved that neither any possession of the suit land was delivered to Lakha Singh respondent nor was he in possession at the time of institution of the suit which was filed on February 18, 1976. It was further argued that Sanad allotment Exhibit PW5/a shows that the suit land was allotted to Lakha Singh by Naib-Tehsildar Sales-cum-Managing officer, Patiala, vide his order, dated January 17, 1976. According to the learned counsel, such allotments to the displaced persons were challenged by certain persons in this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 2657 of 1970. The allotments were upheld but on appeal the apex Court granted stay of operation of judgment of this Court and the Development Commissioner and Secretary to Government Punjab, Development and Panchayat Department sent a communication Exhibit D4 to the Secretary to Government Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh, that in view of the stay order issued by the Supreme Court of India, the allotment of such lands to displaced persons may be stopped throughout the State to avoid further complications till the decision of the appeal and allotments made already be cancelled. It was also stated therein that necessary instructions be issued to the field staff of Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, under advice to the Development and Panchayat Department. This communication is dated December 5, 1975. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the allotment having been made on January 12, 1976, i. e. , after the issuance of Exhibit D2 being in violation of the instructions contained therein is inconsequential. The learned counsel has also referred to the evidence of PW1 Joginder Singh Patwari Halqa Chamaru and pointed out that he had also stated that possession of the land was delivered to Lakha Singh on the basis of the order of the Rehabilitation Department. He further stated that Naib-Tehsildar had conducted an enquiry in compliance with the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Rajpura, according to which it was not found that the land in suit was ploughed. On the basis of Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Rajpura, Rapat Roznamcha No. 241, dated February 10, 1976, Exhibit P2 to that effect was recorded. Therefore, according to the learned counsel once Exhibit P1 in favour of Lakha Singh was cancelled, he had no right to claim to be in possession of the suit land and to seek injunction against the appellants.