SANWAT RAM Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction the plaintiffs in the suit had prayed that they be not evicted or dispossessed from his house including guvara as detailed in the plaint. The applicants were recorded in the name of Bhagwana in the year 1947. Subsequently, the said Bhagwana gave it to the fore-fathers of the plaintiff who constructed the house and since then they have been living and using the other land for keeping animals and fuel wood etc. Earlier they had filed a suit for declaration in which it was held that they are in possession of the property as owners in a suit against Gorkhi, the grant-son of Bhagwana. 2. The Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Narnaul. The order of eviction was passed by Assistant Collector IInd Grade and when the plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the order dated 21.10.1993, the same was dismissed on 28.10.1994 and the revision against the appellate order also met the same fate. According to the plaintiffs they are owners in possession and, therefore, they cannot be dispossessed by the Gram Panchayat (Defendant). 3. The case of the defendants was that the previous suit was collusive and the said decree was not binding on the Gram Panchayat as suit property is owned and possessed by the defendants and the plaintiffs have no interest in this property. After the judgment of the revenue authorities dated 3.7.1995 on an application under Section 13(b) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, the plaintiffs have forcibly occupied the land and now in furtherance of the order of eviction they are liable to be evicted. 4. On these facts the learned trial court found that there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of which the Gram Panchayat could be restrained from taking possession in due course of law. The Court held that the order passed by the revenue authorities on the application under Section 13-A of the Act has become final. The plaintiffs have lost till revisional authority and have not assailed that order before the High Court in appropriate proceedings. Vide order dated 3.9.1997 the injunction application was dismissed. Appeal against the same was also dismissed vide order dated 17.11.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul. The following observations of the said judgment are relevant :- "The plaintiffs were in illegal and unauthorised possession of the property of the gram panchayat and it got them evicted from it by moving the necessary application under Section 7(2) of the Village Common Lands Act, from the court of Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Narnaul. The order of the concerned authority was upheld by the superior courts in appeal and revision. The plaintiffs have exhausted the remedies available to them under the statute. As is clear from the provision of Section 13 of the Village Common Lands Act, the Civil Court can't sit in judgments over the concurrent findings recorded by the revenue courts. Reliance in this regard can be well placed upon Chander Parkash and others v. Gram Panchayat, Ranwar and another, 1989(1) All India Land Laws Reporter page 239 : 1989(1) RRR 348 (Punjab & Haryana High Court)". From the above facts I am unable to see any jurisdictional or other error apparent on the face of the record in the present case. The concurrent prima facie view of the Courts below is in consonance with the settled principles of law. I find no merit in this revision. The same is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.