GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. SINGH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF , Singh Ram, who is respondent No. 1 in this petition (hereinafter called 'the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 5, Gram Panchayat, petitioner before me (hereinafter called 'the petitioner') and defendants No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 who are respondents No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 in this petition (hereinafter called 'the defendants') from dispossessing him from the land measuring 26 kanals and 4 marlas described in the heading of the suit. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for restraining the defendants and the petitioner during the pendency of the suit was also filed.

(2.) THE plea taken by the plaintiff in his plaint was that the suit land was transferred in the name of Gram Panchayat vide mutation No. 339. The plaintiff was inducted as a tenant by the petitioner in the suit land in the year 1992 on payment of chakota of Rs. 100.00 per year. The plaintiff was in possession of the land but the defendants in league with the petitioner were threatening to dispossess him from the suit land. Defendants in their written statement denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. The suit land, according to them, was given on the patta for a fixed term of one year and after completion of one year the land was given on patta through an open auction. They further reiterated in their written statement that vide resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 4. 5. 1995, the land in question was auctioned on 27. 5. 1995. In the auction both the plaintiff and the defendants had participated. The land in question was allotted to the defendants as they were the highest bidders. It is then specifically stated in their written statement that the defendants were handed over the possession of the land. It was denied that the plaintiff was a tenant under the Gram Panchayat. Thus, the prayer of the plaintiff for temporary injunction was opposed by the defendants before the trial Court.

(3.) THE plaintiff had produced on recorded a copy of Jamabandi for the year 1989-90, copies of khasra girdawaris entries from the years 1992 to 1995. On the other hand, the defendants had produced on record the photostat copy of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat dated 4. 5. 1995, photostat copy of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 27. 5. 1995 and the record of auction held on 27. 5. 95 and receipt dated 27. 5. 95 in favour of the defendants. Some other receipts of auction money deposited by the other bidders were also produced on record.