Tikam Dass (deceased) represented by his legal heirs Ram Parkash vs Gram Panchayat of Village Jhumian Wali

J.V. Gupta, J.

This is plaintiff''s second appeal whose suit for injunction has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

The plaintiff filed the suit for the grant of the permanent injinction against the Gram Panchayat on the ground that he was once of the proprietors in the village. During the consolidation of holdings, some land was deducted from the land of each proprietor. Seven kanals two marlas of land so deducted was handed over to the defendant Gram Panchayat. Since the Gram Panchayat wanted to allot the land, in dispute, to the homeless persons for the construction of their houses, he filed the present suit for the grant of the permanent injunction.

The suit was contested on the plea that the plaintiff alone was not the proprietor in the village and as such, he could not institute a representative suit. It was also pleaded that the defendant Gram Panchayat had handed over the land, in dispute, to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer who had distributed the same in the form of plots to different persons who had also taken possession thereof. The trial Court found that the possession of the suit land had not been delivered to the allottees. It was further held that the suit land was owned by the proprietors of the village and that the plaintiff was not in possession thereof. The sit was dismissed on the ground that the management of the land vasted in the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, it was within its rights to allot the land in the form of plots to the homeless inhabitants of the village. In appeal, the Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and, thus, maintained the decree dismissing the plaintiff''s suit.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that it was the bachat area which was given to the Panchayat during the consolidation of holdings and, therefore, the Gram Panchayat was not entitled to carve out the plots for the homeless inhabitants of the village. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Sudhan v. The State of Haryana, 1981 Punjab Law Journal 256 and Municipal Committee, Dhanauia v. The District Magistrate, Sangrur, 1968 Punjab Law Reporter 102.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this appeal.

It is the plaintiff''s own case in the plaint that the management of the suit land was handed over to the Gram Panchayat. Once it is admitted, then, it is for the Gram Panchayat to utilise the same in the manner it likes. Therefore, it has been rightly held by the Courts below that the plaintiff or any other owner of the suit land had no right to restrain the Gram Panchayat from entering upon the management of the suit land. The abovesaid rulings relied upon by the learned Counsel for appellant have no applicability to the facts of the present case.

Apart from the above, the relief of the permanent injunction is discretionary. Both the Courts below on proper appreciation of the evidence on the record have dismissed the plaintiff''s suit. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the same in second appeal.

Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.