Mehta Ram and another Mehta Ram and another v. vs Gram Panchayat Behlana and ors. Gram Panchayat Behlana and ors
Case Details
RSA-5417 5417-2017 (O&M) [1 1] 114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH ***** RSA-5417-2017 (O&M) RSA Date of Decision: 02.09.2025 Date of Decision: Mehta Ram and another Mehta Ram and another Versus Versus Gram Panchayat Behlana and ors. Gram Panchayat Behlana and ors. …….Appellants .….Respondents HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: Present:
Legal Reasoning
Advocate Mr.Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the appellants. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CM-14421 14421-C-2017 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is filing the appeal is condoned. allowed. Delay of 32 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. allowed. Delay of 32 days in re RSA-5417 5417-2017 (O&M) By way of present appeal challenge has been laid to the By way of present appeal challenge has been laid to the By way of present appeal challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 18.04.2013 and 31.08.2016 judgments and decrees dated passed by 18.04.2013 and 31.08.2016 passed by the Courts below; whereby the suit for possession and permanent the Courts below; whereby the suit for possession and permanent the Courts below; whereby the suit for possession and permanent the Courts below; whereby the suit for possession and permanent laintiffs with respect to injunction filed at the instance of appellants / plaintiffs with respect to injunction filed at the instance of appellants / p injunction filed at the instance of appellants / p property forming part of Khasra No.42, property forming part of Khasra No. situated within the revenue 42, situated within the revenue estate of Village Behlana, U.T. Chandigarh came to be dismissed. estate of Village Behlana, U.T. Chandigarh came to be dismissed. estate of Village Behlana, U.T. Chandigarh came to be dismissed. 2. In short, while claiming the suit property bearing Khasra In short, while claiming the suit property bearing Khasra In short, while claiming the suit property bearing Khasra No. 18//42 revenue estate of Village Behlana, UT 42, situated within the revenue estate of Village Behlana, UT revenue estate of Village Behlana, UT Chandigarh to be a passage, the appellants filed a suit for possession Chandigarh to be a passage, the appellants filed a suit for possession Chandigarh to be a passage, the appellants filed a suit for possession Chandigarh to be a passage, the appellants filed a suit for possession RSA-5417 5417-2017 (O&M) [2 2] as well as permanent injunction to the effect as well as permanent injunction that the respondent to the effect that the respondent the same Gram Panchayat had unauthorizedly taken possession of the same Gram Panchayat had unauthorizedly taken possession Gram Panchayat had unauthorizedly taken possession having raised a bo undary wall thereupon in an unlawful manner. It raised a boundary wall thereupon in an unlawful manner. It undary wall thereupon in an unlawful manner. It was also pleaded that the said passage was being used by the was also pleaded that the said passage was being used by the was also pleaded that the said passage was being used by the was also pleaded that the said passage was being used by the obstruction raised thereupon was residents of the Village and the obstruction raised thereupon was obstruction raised thereupon was residents of the Village and unlawful on the part of Gram Panchayat of the Village. Plaintiffs unlawful on the part of Gram Panchayat of the Village. Plaintiffs unlawful on the part of Gram Panchayat of the Village. Plaintiffs unlawful on the part of Gram Panchayat of the Village. Plaintiffs further plead ed that they happened to be owner in possession of part pleaded that they happened to be owner in possession of part ed that they happened to be owner in possession of part of Khasra N 18//27 and the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was Khasra No. 18//27 and the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was 18//27 and the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was land bearing Khasra No.18//27, thus being used as a passage to their land bearing Khasra No.18//27, thus land bearing Khasra No.18//27, thus being used as a passage to hence the present suit. the obstruction was illegal and hence the present suit. the obstruction 3. Upon notice, written statement n notice, written statement was filed by respondent was filed by respondents, controverting the stand taken by the appellants while stating that controverting the stand the taken by the appellants while stating that the appellants/ plaintiffs they were no more appellants/ plaintiffs owners of land forming they were no more the owners of land forming part of Khasra No. 18//27 as the same already stood sold by the part of Khasra No. 18//27 m. It as the same already stood sold by them. It was also submitted that the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was was also submitted that the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was was also submitted that the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was was also submitted that the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was never used as common passage but was never used as common passage but was never used as common passage but was never used as common passage but was reserved during reserved during reserved during reserved during consolidation for being utilized as ‘Kura Dan consolidation ’ by the residents of the Kura Dan’ by the residents of the pleaded that the suit for permanent injunction village. It was further pleaded that the suit for permanent injunction pleaded that the suit for permanent injunction village. It was qua the same property filed by the appellants was dismissed vide qua the same property filed by the appellants was dismissed vide qua the same property filed by the appellants was dismissed vide qua the same property filed by the appellants was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.1999 passed by the trial Court and judgment and decree dated 21.12.1999 passed by the trial Court and judgment and decree dated 21.12.1999 passed by the trial Court and judgment and decree dated 21.12.1999 passed by the trial Court and vide judgment and decree dated the was even upheld in appeal vide judgment and decree dated vide judgment and decree dated the was even upheld in appeal hus the present suit was not maintainable being 09.09.2002 and thus the present suit was not maintainable being hus the present suit was not maintainable being 09.09.2002 and t barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were RSA-5417 5417-2017 (O&M) [3 3] framed:- Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree for possession 1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree for possession Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree for possession as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether plaintiffs are e ntitled to decree for declaration Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree for declaration as prayed for? OPP Whether suit of plaintiffs is barred under order 2 Rule 2 3. Whether suit of plaintiffs is barred under order 2 Rule 2 Whether suit of plaintiffs is barred under order 2 Rule 2 of CPC? OPD Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by the principle of 4. Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by the principle of Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by the principle of res-judicata? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties? OPD 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the 7. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 8. Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 9. Whether the suit is not in the present maintainable Whether the suit is not in the present maintainable form?OPD Whether plaintiffs have not come to the court with 10. Whether plaintiffs have not come to the court with Whether plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands? If so its effect?OPD clean hands? If so its effect?OPD Whether the suit is bad for want to compliance of 11. Whether the suit is bad for want to compliance of Whether the suit is bad for want to compliance of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC?OPD Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC 12. Relief.” 5. After appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the After appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the After appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the , being barred learned trial Court went on to dismiss the suit, inter-alia, being barred learned trial Court went on to dismiss the suit, learned trial Court went on to dismiss the suit, under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC vide judgment and decree dated under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC vide judgment and decree dated under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC vide judgment and decree dated under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC vide judgment and decree dated 18.04.2013. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/ plaintiffs filed first 18.04.2013. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/ plaintiffs filed first 18.04.2013. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/ plaintiffs filed first 18.04.2013. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/ plaintiffs filed first appeal, however, the same was also dismissed by the Court of appeal, however, the same was also dismissed by the Court of appeal, however, the same was also dismissed by the Court of appeal, however, the same was also dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 31.08.2016. 31.08.2016. RSA-5417 5417-2017 (O&M) [4 4] 6. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellants passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellants passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellants passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was being used submits that the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was being used submits that the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was being used submits that the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was being used as passage and an entry to this effect was also recorded in Khasra as passage and an entry to this effect was also recorded in Khasra as passage and an entry to this effect was also recorded in Khasra as passage and an entry to this effect was also recorded in Khasra looked by the Girdwari for the year 1990, which was wholly over-looked by the Girdwari for the year 1990, which was wholly over Girdwari for the year 1990, which was wholly over n were Courts and thus the judgments and decrees impugned herein were Courts and thus the judgments and decrees impugned herei Courts and thus the judgments and decrees impugned herei and consequently the suit filed by appellants/ liable to be set aside and consequently the suit filed by appellants/ and consequently the suit filed by appellants/ liable to be set aside No other argument has been plaintiffs was required to be decreed. No other argument has been plaintiffs was required to be decreed plaintiffs was required to be decreed addressed. addressed. 7. and gone Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and gone Having heard learned counsel for the appellant through the paper-book, I am unable to fi through the paper nd any substance in the book, I am unable to find any substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. submissions made on behalf of the appellant submissions made on behalf of the appellant 8. The case set up by the appellants is that they are owners The case set up by the appellants is that they are owners The case set up by the appellants is that they are owners in possession of part of Khasra No. 18//27 and the property forming in possession of part of Khasra No. 18//27 and the property forming in possession of part of Khasra No. 18//27 and the property forming in possession of part of Khasra No. 18//27 and the property forming o reach part of Khasra No. 42 is being used as a passage so as to reach part of Khasra No. 42 is being used as a passage part of Khasra No. 42 is being used as a passage it has been established on record Khasra No. 18//27. Undisputedly, it has been established on record it has been established on record Khasra No. 18//27. Undisputedly, the appellants have no more remained owner in possession of that the appellants have no more remained owner in possession of the appellants have no more remained owner in possession of the appellants have no more remained owner in possession of the property forming part of Khasra No. 18//27 as the same already the property forming part of Khasra No. 18//27 as the same already the property forming part of Khasra No. 18//27 as the same already the property forming part of Khasra No. 18//27 as the same already stood sold by them. stood sold by them. 9. umentary evidence available on Furthermore, from the documentary evidence available on Furthermore, from the doc , it was proved that the property record in the shape of Exs. D1 to D9, it was proved that the property , it was proved that the property record in the shape of Exs and was being forming part of Khasra No.42 belonged to abadi deh and was being forming part of Khasra No.42 belonged to forming part of Khasra No.42 belonged to ’ and was never used as a passage. Mere stray used as ‘Kura Dan’ and was never used as a passage. Mere stray ’ and was never used as a passage. Mere stray used as ‘ entry in the khasra girdwarai for the year 1990 showing the appellants entry in the khasra girdwarai for the year 1990 showing the appellants entry in the khasra girdwarai for the year 1990 showing the appellants entry in the khasra girdwarai for the year 1990 showing the appellants RSA-5417 5417-2017 (O&M) [5 5] to be in possession thereof was liable to be just ignored in view of the to be in possession thereof was liable to be just ignored in view of the to be in possession thereof was liable to be just ignored in view of the to be in possession thereof was liable to be just ignored in view of the iled at consistent revenue record to the contrary. Besides it, the suit filed at consistent revenue record to the contrary. Besides it, the suit f consistent revenue record to the contrary. Besides it, the suit f even barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC the instance of appellants was even barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC even barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC the instance of appellants wa as in the previous suit, the appellants/ plaintiffs never ever prayed for as in the previous suit, the appellants/ plaintiffs never ever prayed for as in the previous suit, the appellants/ plaintiffs never ever prayed for as in the previous suit, the appellants/ plaintiffs never ever prayed for grant of possession and the only prayer made by them for permanent grant of possession and the only prayer made by them for permanent grant of possession and the only prayer made by them for permanent grant of possession and the only prayer made by them for permanent ial Court vide judgment and injunction was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and injunction was dismissed by the learned tr injunction was dismissed by the learned tr decree dated 21.12.1999 (Ex.DA) and the appeal against the same decree dated 21.12.1999 (Ex.DA) and the appeal against the same decree dated 21.12.1999 (Ex.DA) and the appeal against the same decree dated 21.12.1999 (Ex.DA) and the appeal against the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.09.2002 was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.09.2002 was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.09.2002 was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.09.2002 (ExDB). 10. As such, in view of the discussion made in the foregoing view of the discussion made in the foregoing law, much less substantial question of law is paras, no question of law, much less substantial question of law is law, much less substantial question of law is paras, no question of as there is no illegality or irregularity involved in the present appeal; as there is no illegality or irregularity as there is no illegality or irregularity involved in the present appeal warranting interference by this Court warranting interference by this Court with the concurrent findings of with the concurrent findings of , the present appeal being devoid of , the present appeal being devoid fact recorded by the Courts below, the present appeal being devoid fact recorded by the Courts below merits is, therefore, dismissed. merits is, therefore, dismissed. 11. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand
Decision
disposed of. disposed of. .2025 02.09.2025 sanjay (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Yes/No Yes/No