- (1.) This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 15.11.2000 passed by the Additional Distt. Judge, Jhajjar, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioners U/o 43 R. 1, CPC, by affirming the order of the trial Court for the reasons given in para-5 of the impugned order, which read as under :- "Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs contended that in rule 3 of the Punjab village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules 1963 the purposes for which the land in Shamlat deh, vested in the panchayat can be used have been laid down. He pointed out that according to clause (xxvi) of sub rule (2) Rule 3, the Panchayat may make use of the land for any other kindred common purpose with the approval of panchayat samiti. The contention of learned counsel is that without approval of panchayat samiti land, in the dispute can not be used for the construction of temple, the submission of learned counsel is that the order passed by learned trial Court is erroneous and plaintiffs are entitled to injunction. On the other hand, learned counsel for 'defendants supported the conclusion arrived at by learned trila Court. The - resolution passed by the gram panchayat on 17.7.1998 for construction of temple is avialable on trila Court record. A persu;a of the document shows that the temple was supposed to be constructed in khasra No. 13/25/1 and the copy of resolution was sent to B.D. and P.O., Bahadurgarh. It has been pointed out that Khasra No. 13/25/1 is not a part of the land described by the plaintiffs in para No. 2 of their plaint. As such, the land, where the gram panchayat proposed to construct the temple is not part of the suit land. No relief regarding the land of khasra No. 13/25/1 have been sought. Learned counsel for defendants contended that the civil Court has, got no jurisdiction and has relied upon Shishpal Singh and others v. Rafiq Ahmad and others.,1998 1 LJR 335He pointed out that (in that case) the plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from dispossessing them forcibly and from changing the nature of the suit land. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs also filed an application for grant of ad interim injunction. It was an undisputed fact in that case that the land had been described as gair - mumkin charand i.e. for the purposes of grazing cattle and was being used as such. The Hon'ble. High Court observed that in the circumstances, the land fell within the description contained in Section 2(g) (1) of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and concluded that the first appellate Court was right in observing that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit land the plaintiffs were not entitled to the grant of ad interim injunction. In the present case, before me, the plaintiffs have alleged that the land is banjar kadim and has been used as grazing ground, charand, etc. Learned counsel for defendants also pointed out that in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1991-1992 available on the file, panchayat deh, has been recorded to be the owner in possession of land described in para No. 2 of the plaint and this land has been described as banjar kadim. As such, I am inclined to agree with the contention of learned counsel for defendants that the said authority is fully applicable to the f acts of the present case."
(2.) The dispute in this case is with regard to khasra Nos. 13/25/1 and 13/25/2. The main grouse of the petitioners is that so far as khasra No. 13//25/1 is concerned, as per the revenue record, it is the property of Sarai Co-op. Society and, in these circumstances, the Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction to construct the Mandir over this property. Counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contention, invites my attention to the jamabandi for the year 1996-97, which shows that khasra No. 13//25/1 is property of the Society and is in possession of the owner.
(3.) In my opinion, this document goes against the petitioners. The suit of the plaintiffs is in the representative capacity that the property in question is a property meant for common use and the defendants in collusion with the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat want to grab the property in dispute. The owners of khasra No. 13/25/1 have not raised a cry against the proposed action of the Gram Panchayat, nor they are party to the suit. In these circumstances, the petitioners have no legal argument to say that the Gram Panchayat and the defendants are interfering in khasra No. 13/25/1.;