Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha, Munak Kalan, Hoshiarpur vs Gurdev Singh

D.V. Sehgal, J.—The respondent filed a suit in the trial Court for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the plot marked in letters ''CDEF'' as shown in green and red colours in the site plan attached with the plaint. Therefore, he sought consequential relief of decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-petitioners, from digging a drain in between the portions indicated AB in red colour in the site plan situated within the lal lakir in the abadi of village Munak Kalan, tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. He claimed that he is the exclusive owner of the said plot. The entire plot is enclosed by a boundary wall. He inherited the same from his father and a room had also been constructed in a part of the plot the whole plot is being used by him as cattle shed. The gram panchayat petitioner and its Sarpanch were threatening to dig out a drain at points AB. They could not do so. It was on these facts that the relief was sought.

In the written statement the defendant-petitioners contended that a part of the property in dispute, where the drain was being dug, was a public street which vested in the Gram Panchayat. It was further contended that the civil Court had no jurisdiction. It was barred to entertain any suit u/s 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The learned trial Court proceeded to frame a preliminary issue whether the civil Court had got the jurisdiction to try the suit and by its detailed order dated 4.9.1986 decided the same in favour of the respondent and held that the civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit Aggrieved against this order, the Gram-Panchayat petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

On going through the judgment I find no fault with the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court. It has rightly held that the claim of the respondent is categoric to the effect that the entire property in dispute is owned by him and he inherited the same from his father. The petitioner wants to dig a drain in a part of this property and claims the said part to be a public street. The dispute is, therefore, limited to the question whether the threatened action of the petitioner is an encroachment on the property of the respondent and is it lawful. The whole of the property of the respondent is not claimed to be shamilat deh, and no question of title to the same is involved. Therefore, the provisions of section 13 of the Act are not applicable.

Finding no merit in this revision petition, the same is dismissed but without any order as to costs.

The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 4.10.1988 when further proceedings in accordance with law shall be taken in the suit.