- (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, whereby the suit preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-Gram Panchayat from dispossessing them from the suit land except in due course of law, has been dismissed, appeal against which preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs has also been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat, on 24.08.2015.
(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot sustain in the light of the fact that the revenue records clearly reflect the appellants-plaintiffs in possession of the suit land. He contends that initially there was an exchange of land with the Gram Panchayat in the year 1981 when 9 kanals and 17 marlas of land owned by their predecessor-in-interest was exchanged with 30 kanals and 18 marlas of the Gram Panchayat land vide Resolution No.3 dated 24.03.1981 passed by the Gram Panchayat and accordingly, possession also changed hands. Mutation was sanctioned in the light of the said exchange in favour of father of the appellants-plaintiffs and on the basis of the said mutation, the appellants-plaintiffs are still continuing in possession of this land. The revenue records also reflect them to be so. It so transpired that the Gram Panchayat proceeded to seek sanction from the Government of Haryana as per the procedure and mandate of the statute for the exchange of the land which was not accepted by the Government and by order dated 24.09.1983, the exchange was cancelled and approval of exchange was withdrawn. This order although was challenged by father of the appellants-plaintiffs by filing Civil Writ Petition No.4950 of 1983 titled as Parkash Versus State of Haryana and another but the same was not accepted and the said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. He contends that although the resolution of the Gram Panchayat has been annulled by the Government of Haryana, still the possession continues to be with the appellants-plaintiffs and they are only seeking protection from dispossession except in due course of law. His assertion is that a petition under Section 7 (2) of the Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961, as amended upto date, has been filed against the appellants, where respondent-Gram Panchayat has admitted the possession of the appellants and, therefore, the judgments and decree as passed by the Courts below holding that the appellants-plaintiffs have not been able to show them to be in possession of the land, cannot sustain and deserve to be upseted and the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below set aside and the decree be passed in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and with his assistance, have gone through the impugned judgments but do not accept his contentions.;