Teja Singh vs Gram Panchayat, Kumhari

N.C. Jain, J. (Oral)

This order of mine would dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 918, 919 and 920, all of 1990, as they arise out of similar orders of the trial Court and appellate Court. The counsel for the parties are agreed that the facts of the case may be picked up from Civil Revision No. 918 of 1990, that is, Teja Singh v. Gram Panchayat. I would, therefore, be referring to the facts from Teja Singh''s case only.

The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction alleging that the orders passed by the revenue authorities for eviction for the suit land are bad in law on several grounds. Along with the suit, an application for ad interim injunction was filed, which was dismissed by Shri K.K. Bali, Subordinate Judge, Ist Class, on 21.5.1987. After the dismissal of the application, the petitioner was allowed to amend the plaint to the effect that the land was owned by Gram Panchayat and Custodian Department and till the land was partitioned order of Assistant Collector could not be executed. Since amendment was allowed to be incorporated in the original plaint to the above mentioned effect the petitioner filed a fresh application for the grant of ad interim jurisdiction. The application was again declined by Shri Nand Kishore Biriwal, Subordinate Judge, Ist Class, by his order dated 8.6.1989. Against the aforementioned order, the appeal was filed which has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, and it is his order which has been subjected to challenge in the present revision petition.

The application for the grant of ad interim injunction has been dismissed by both the Courts below primarily on two grounds. In the first instance, it has been held that once the application was dismissed by an earlier order passed by the civil Court, no fresh application could be maintained. In the second instance, it has been observed that the civil Court has got no jurisdiction. The trial Court was further of the opinion that if the petitioner wanted to seek any verdict regarding the vesting or non vesting of the suit land in the Gram Panchayat, he could approach the revenue Court under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that without expressing anything on the merits of the case, the Court would endorse the orders of the Courts below dismissing the application for ad interim injunction. As long as the order of the revenue authorities stands, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of any ad interim injunction because the Gram Panchayat is executing a valid order passed by the revenue authorities. The order may well be held to be without jurisdiction if the petitioner in appropriate proceedings under Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act can successfully show to the authority that the title vests in him. While making these observations, this Court does not mean to express anything on the merits of the case, whether the same is tried by the civil Court or by an authority under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. The findings of the Courts below declining the application for the grant of ad interim injunction are being endorsed by prima facie finding that the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit. The petitioner may, if he so likes, resort to appropriate proceedings under Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act or under any other law. Since the petitioner is admittedly in possession, he would not be dispossessed for a month or more. The passing of this much order would also not mean any possible expression on the merits of this much order would also not mean any possible expression on the merits of the case and the authority concerned will be at liberty to pass any order permissible in law.

It is again observed at the cost of repetition that nothing observed above would mean any expression of opinion on the merits of the case either for the civil Court, if the petitioner decides to go ahead with the civil suit, or for future litigation which may take place between the parties.

The revision petitions are dismissed with the above mentioned observations with no order as to costs.