RANJIT SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 12.12.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, dismissing the appeal of the appellants/unsuccessful plaintiffs. A suit for permanent injunction was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendant Gram Panchayat of village Bahadarpur seeking injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from digging or constructing any drain on gair mumkin rasta of the village on the property in dispute. In that suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was filed praying for interim injunction. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Court by a detailed order dated 22.12.1997. An appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge as noticed above, giving rise to this revision.

(2.) The learned 1st Appellate Court while affirming the prima facie view taken by the learned trial Court in dismissing the application held as under:-

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon a decision of this Court dated 14.2.1983 in the case of Gram Sabha, Nabha v. Shri Om Parkash, R.S.A. No. 1231 of 1974, argued that Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction to make the nala or convert the user of the passage. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is misplaced and misconceived in law and on the facts of the case. The provisions of the Gram Panchayat Act were amended in the year 1992. Under the amended provisions a land which is used by the inhabitants of the village for a common purpose would be the land vested in Gram Panchayat and, thus, the Gram Panchayat can al-7 ways put the said land to the use of a sort which is in the benefit of the public at large. Once land is shamlat deh the error can hardly be found in the judgments of the Courts below. In fact, it was the case of the appellants themselves that it was a gair mumkin common rasta. It means that the inhabitants of the village were using the same as passage and as such the user of the property was not vested in any private individual. As such, the judgment aforestated had an application in law at the relevant time but the law stands amended thereafter and in any case on the facts of the case no relief can be granted to the petitioner as the injunction is a relief on equity and the Court would be well within its jurisdiction to consider a larger interest rather than an individual interest against the public interest.