AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Chand Gupta, J.
C.M. No. 8551-CII of 2011.
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Civil Revision No. 2158 of 2011.
The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside orders passed by learned trial Court, Kharar, Annexure P-4, as well as order passed by learned appellate Court, Annexure P-6, vide which application for ad interim injunction order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC (hereinafter to be referred as ''the Code'') filed by Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff was allowed and the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding cutting and removing the trees from the suit land till the final decision of the suit.
I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned Courts below.
Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that there is dispute regarding ownership and possession of the land in dispute between Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff and Respondent-Defendants No. 1 to 3. As per case of Petitioner, he had taken a contract for cutting and removing the trees from Defendants No. 1 to 3. However, when he tried to cut and remove the trees, the present suit for injunction was filed by Respondent-Plaintiff. There was also previous litigation regarding the land in dispute between proprietors of the patties of the village and the Gram Panchayat and the said litigation was decided in favour of Gram Panchayat. The proprietors of the patties filed civil writ petition before this Court, in which order for maintenance of status quo was passed. However, despite the same, the present Petitioner had taken a contract from some of the members of the patti for cutting and removing the trees. It is yet to be decided as to whether the proprietors of patties from whom he had allegedly taken the contract, were competent to permit the present Petitioner to cut and remove the trees. They were also required to obtain requisite permit from the forest department. Courts below have passed the detailed orders giving detailed reasons while exercising the discretion in ordering for maintenance of status quo qua cutting and removing the trees from the land in dispute in favour of Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff and against the present Petitioner and other Respondent-Defendants.
Learned trial Court decided the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code directing for maintenance of status quo regarding cutting and removing the trees by observing as under:
A perusal of the order dated 7.1.1994 above mentioned passed by the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh shows that parties have been directed to maintain status quo regarding possession over the suit property. A perusal of the documents placed on the file, i.e. Photocopy of notice dated 9.9.2010, photocopy of notice dated 11.10.2010, photocopy of power of attorney dated 31.8.2009, attested copy of resolution dated 10.9.2010, certificate of registration of societies No. 2662 dated 2.9.2010, copies of jamabandi for the year 2003-04, copy of letter bearing No. 7091-92 dated 11.10.2010, copy of letter bearing No. 7095-96 dated 11.10.2010, copy of letter bearing No. 5377-78 dated 1.9.2010, copy of letter No. 3737-38 dated 9.9.2010, copy of letter Nos. 5975-76 dated 14.9.2010, copy of application for obtaining permit, copy of affidavit of Ram Dass and others, copy of resolution dated 23.8.2010, copy of agreement dated 27.8.2010, copy of agreement dated 11.9.2010, copy of cheque dated 14.9.2010, four copies of jamabandi for the year 2008-09, copy of resolution dated 23.9.2010 of Forest Management, copy of resolution dated 25.9.2010, copy of resolution dated 23.9.2010, of Gram Sudhar Committee Tarapur, two copies of resolution dated 26.9.2010 of Gram Sudhar Committee Tarapur, Copies of jamabandi for the year 2008-09, copy of proceedings dated 18.8.2009 of Defendant No. 1, Bank Pass book of Ram Singh, President of Plaintiff society, copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-04, copy of list of proprietors etc., copy of order dated 7.2.1994 passed by Hon''ble MrJustice M.S. Librahan Judge and Hon''ble Mr. Justice H.S. Brar Judge of Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 1094 of 1994, copy of order dated 24.1.1995 passed by the Hon''ble Mr. Justice M.S. Liberhan Judge and Hon''ble Mrs. Justice Sarojinei Saxena, Judges of Hon''ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 1094 of 1994, copy of Civil Writ Petition No. 1094, copy of Annexure P/1, copy of jamabandi for the year 1942-43, village Tarapur No. 325, copy of jamabandi for the year 1952-53, Village Tarapur No. 325, copy of jamabandi for the year 1983-84, village Tarapur No. 325, copy of claim petition, titled Babu Ram and Ors. v. Gram Panahcyat (Annexure P2), copy of claim petition, titled Babu Ram and Ors. v. Gram Panchayat (Annexure P/3), copy of appeal u/s 11(2) of the Punjab Village common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961, titled Babu Ram and Ors. v. Gram Panchayat, copy of order dated 8.12.1993 passed in appeal No. 168/90, titled Babu Ram etc. v. Gram Panchayat Tarapur (Annexure P/5), copy of written statement dated 25.10.1989, Annexure P-6, copy of statement of Ram Kishan, copy of written statement on behalf of Gram Panchayat Respondent No. 4 filed in C.W.P. No. 1094 of 1994 titled Babu Ram and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. Punjab Govt. Gazette Extra Ordinary dated May 22, 2007. The East Punjab Holdings consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act 1948 as amended upto date, alongwith East Punjab Holdings Consolidate and Prevention of Fragmentation Act 2007, Punjab Act No. 6 of 2007 Notification 23 July 2007 shows that present case involves intricate question of law and fact, which can be adjudicated upon only after the proper evidence is led by the parties. Further more, the parties to the suit are required to be directed to conclude their evidence within three effective opportunities, with short adjournment and necessary directions are being given vide my separate order. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the ends of justice would be met if the parties to the suit are directed to maintain status quo regarding cutting and removing the trees in the suit property. Therefore, application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the Plaintiff as well as application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC filed by Defendants No. 5 to 38 are allowed. The parties to the suit are directed to maintain status quo regarding cutting and removing the trees in the suit property till the final decision of the suit. However, any of the observation made herein above shall have no effect on the merits of the case.
Learned first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by present Petitioner against the said order by observing as under:
Therefore, as per the law laid down by the Full Bench of the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, the ownership of the land reserved for common purposes vest in Gram Panchayat irrespective of the fact that the said land has been utilised for the common purposes for which same was earmarked or the same is lying unutilised. It is not the case of the parties that the land in question is a Bachat land and the same is not reserved for any common purpose. Moreover these questions are likely to be decided by the Hon''ble High Court in the writ petition pending between the proprietary body of the village and Gram Panchayat. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jai Singh''s case (supra), other judgments which were delivered by the Hon''ble High Court prior to the judgment in Jai Singh''s case(supra) cannot held the Appellants.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that at this stage, it cannot be said that either the Plaintiff or Defendants have got any right to cut or remove the trees in question. So far as the locus standi of the Plaintiff to file the suit is concerned, in such like matter any resident of the village can invoke the jursidcition of the Court, as the land is meant for entire village community. On the basis of the above discussion, I find that the learned trial Court has rightly directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the trees in question and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Since the appeal is without any merit, there is hereby dismissed. However, it is possible that at some stage the Plaintiff and Defendants may collude with each other in order to share the proceeds of the sale of trees, therefore, it is ordered that a copy of this order be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, SAS Nagar, Mohali, so that he may take appropriate steps for protection of the rights of Gram Panchayat. Copy of this order should also be sent to the Divisional Forest Officer, Rupnagar, so that any of the parties may not obtain permit from the Forest Department by making misrepresentation regarding their entitlement of cut or remove the trees in question. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 25.2.2011. Ahlmad is directed to send back the record of learned trial Court alongwith the copy of judgment well before the date fixed. Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case by this Court and learned trial Court should adjudicate upon the matter on merits without being influenced by the observations made in this order. Appeal file be consigned to the record room.
Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned orders and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.
Moreover, law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. 2004 (1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.