Gram Panchayat v. Surjit Singh and Ors

IN T

Gram Panchaya

Surjit Singh (de

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr

For MANDEEP PA

1.

Thi Panchayat, Vill passed by the le by the defendan passed by the le Brief Facts

2.

Bri Panchayat, Villa suit pleading th and it is the ow THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re

Pro at, Village Matoi

VERSUS

ceased) through his LRs and Oth ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Parvez Akhtar, Advocate for th r. P.S.Guliani and Mr. G.S.Beniw r respondents No.1 to 3, 4, 6 to 1 -.-

ANNU,J. is Regular Second Appeal has age Matoi, challenging the judg earned Additional District Judge nts was accepted and the judgm arned trial Court in favour of the iefly stated, the facts of the age Matoi, through its Sarpanch at the suit property is shamlat d wner and in possession thereof,

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-2464-1998 (O&M) served on : 17.09.2025 onounced on: 22.09.2025

....Appellant hers ….Respondents DEEP PANNU he appellant. wal, Advocates 10, 13 and 14. s been filed by the plaintiff-Gr gment and decree dated 4.11.19 , Sangrur, whereby the appeal fi ment and decree dated 21.04.19 e plaintiff was reversed. case are that the plaintiff Gr h Amar Singh, instituted the pres dehland belonging to the Pancha as detailed in the headnote of

- ram filed ram sent

plaint. It was defendants no.6 defendants, purp dated 17.05.195 According to th by the Gram Pa transfer was eve and inoperative that on the bas sanctioned in th entries were ma continued to rem or interest and th office bearers o the defendants f

15.06.1984 for mutation are voi

3.

Up statement, contr plaintiff has no defendant Bach Singh through th and Harnam Sin possession. It w corresponding e pleaded that defendant no.1 6 and 7 and one Bhagwant ported to have purchased the su 57 from one Dalip Singh, Sarp he plaintiff, neither Dalip Singh anchayat to alienate the suit land er passed. The said sale deed was against the rights of the plaintif sis of the said sale deed, defe heir favour in collusion with re ade in the revenue record. The p main in unlawful possession of t heir possession could at best be p of the Panchayat. Despite repeat failed to do so, compelling the P declaration that the sale deed id and ineffective and for conseq on notice, the defendants a roverting the allegations of the o concern with the suit land, han Singh (since deceased), def he registered sale deed executed ngh, Panch, and ever since then, was asserted that mutation was va entries made in the revenue reco

Bachan Singh (since decease Singh, father of the remain uit land vide a registered sale d panch and Harnam Singh, Pan nor Harnam Singh was authori d and no resolution authorising su s alleged to be illegal, null and v ff Panchayat. It was further plea fendants managed to get mutat evenue officials and correspond plaintiff averred that the defenda the suit land without any right, t permissive, being that of trustees ted demands to restore possessi Panchayat to file the present suit dated 17.05.1957 and subsequ quential relief of possession. appeared and filed joint writ e plaintiff. It was pleaded that which was validly purchased fendants no.6 and 7 and Bhagw d by Dalip Singh, former Sarpan the defendants have been in law alidly sanctioned in their favour ord. The defendants further claim

- ed), ning deed nch. ised uch void ded tion ding ants title s or ion, t on uent tten by wan nch, wful and

that they had ef that the defend perfected their t open and hostile

4.

Rep in the plaint and

5.

Fro

(1) and

(2)

(3) adv

(4) lan

(5)

(6) filin

(7)

(8)

6.

Babu Singh PW

7.

On tendered in evid

8.

the suit. The pl ffected improvements on the land dants being in possession of t title by way of adverse possessio e to the plaintiff. plication was filed by the plainti d denying those in the written sta om the pleadings of the parties, th Whether the sale dated 17.05.19 d has no effect on the rights of th Whether the plaintiff is the own ) Whether the defendants have b verse possession? OPD ) Whether the defendants have nd? If so, to what amount and wh ) Whether the suit is not maintain Whether the plaintiff is estop ng the suit? OPD Whether the suit has been prope . Relief. e parties went to trial. The pla W2 and Amar Singh PW3 and clo n the other hand, the defendants dence Ex.D1 to Ex.D14. e learned trial Court, after hear aintiff Gram Panchayat filed ap

d. In the alternative, it was plea the suit property since 1957 h on, the possession being continuo iff, reaffirming the averments m atement. he following issues were framed 957 is contrary to facts of law, v he plaintiff? OPP ner of the suit land? OPP become owners of the suit land made any improvement in the hat effect? OPD nable in the present form? OPD pped by his act and conduct fr erly filed? OPP. aintiff examined Barkat Ali PW sed its evidence. s examined Amar Singh DW1 ring the parties, initially dismis ppeal before the learned Additio

- ded had ous, made d: void d by suit

rom W1, and ssed

District Judge, S to the trial Cour namely: "W

9.

Court to decide both the parties. Findings of the

10.

On and vide its judg suit holding that that the sale dee null and void, in recover possess learned trial Cou under Section 1 did not apply to the land was or was observed t decide claims re no authority to a persons. Relying and others 198 entertain and de Sangrur, who vide judgment da rt for fresh decision after framing Whether the Civil Court has got e present suit? OPD." e case was accordingly remand the case afresh after giving an . The appeal was accepted. e trial Court n receipt of the case, the learned gment and decree dated 21.04.19 t the plaintiff Gram Panchayat is ed Ex.D1 dated 17.05.1957 and noperative and liable to be canc ion of the suit property and wh urt first dealt with the question o 13 of the Punjab Village Comm o the present controversy, as the was not shamlat deh but only re that the Collector under Section elating to vesting or non-vesting adjudicate on the validity of an g on case law, including Satbir 85 PLJ 426, it was held that t ecide the present suit.

ated 06.01.1992, remanded the c g an additional issue on jurisdicti no jurisdiction to entertain and ded with the direction to the low opportunity of leading evidence trial Court, decided the case afr 993, learned trial Court decreed s the owner of the suit property a the mutation dated 25.10.1978 celled and the plaintiff is entitled hile returning the said findings, of jurisdiction and held that the mon Lands (Regulation) Act, 19 dispute was not regarding whet egarding validity of the sale deed n 11 of the Act is empowered g of land in the Panchayat, but alienation effected by unauthori Singh and another v. Dhani R the Civil Court had jurisdiction

- case ion, d try wer e to resh and are d to bar 961, ther d. It d to has ised Ram

11.

On accrued to the p was sanctioned, held that the su Articles 58 and Limitation Act,

12.

On resolution of the the sale deed an the 1953 Act an provided for lea land required ap case. The trial C of Panchayat pro

13.

On of the defenda permissive poss open, notorious period. It was h present case th defendants, ther possession.

14.

Con the trial Court o

n the issue of limitation, the trial plaintiff only on 25.10.1978 whe as till then the plaintiff continu uit filed on 15.06.1984 was w d 65 of the Limitation Act, 196 1963 was held misplaced, the su n the merits of the alienation, i e Panchayat authorising Dalip S nd at the time of execution of Ex nd Rules of 1955 did not contemp ase by auction, and even under pproval of the Director, Panchaya Court thus held that the sale deed operty by unauthorised persons, n the issue of adverse possession, ants was permissive, through u session cannot ripen into owners and to the knowledge of the tru held that mere continuous poss he ingredients of adverse poss refore, could not claim ownershi nsequently, the suit of the plaint n 21.04.1993.

Court held that the cause of act en mutation in favour of defenda ued to be recorded as owner. It w within limitation, being covered

¶63Reliance on Article 111 of uit land being agricultural land. it was observed that there was Singh and Harnam Singh to exec .D1, neither was Sarpanch. Furth mplate sale of shamlat land, and o the 1961 Act, sale of shamlat d ats, which was absent in the pres d was the result of fraud and mis rendering it null and void. , the trial Court held that possess unauthorised alienation, and su hip unless it is shown to be host ue owner for the requisite statut session was insufficient and in session were not established. T ip either under Ex.D1 or by adve iff Gram Panchayat was decreed

- tion ants was by cute her, only deh sent suse sion uch tile, tory erse

Findings of the

15.

Fee learned trial C Additional Distr arguments of th of jurisdiction However, while validity of the s observed that th defendants ove Jamabandis, cle the suit land, sh rent. Since the d tenants as obser sale deed was h would be deem having continue

16.

a trustee cannot instant case, it asserting advers possession inde that from the ev had become own e Lower Appellate Court eling aggrieved by the aforesaid Court, the defendants preferre rict Judge, Sangrur. The learned e parties, concurred with the fin and held that the jurisdiction e dealing with the issues of l sale deed, the learned appellate he Gram Panchayat had know er the suit land. Ex.D3 to D arly reveal that the defendants h hown as gair marusi, on account defendants were never paying an rved by the trial Court. Their po hostile and adverse to the Gram med to be in adverse possession ed for more than twelve years. e appellate Court agreed that ord t claim adverse possession again was not the Sarpanch or Panch se possession, but the defendant ependent of the Panchayat. Acc vidence available on record, it st ners of the suit land by way of ad

judgment and decree passed by ed an appeal before the learn d appellate Court, after hearing dings of the trial Court on the is of the Civil Court is not barr limitation, adverse possession Court took a contrary view. It w ledge about the possession of D7, which are the copies of have been recorded in possession t of the sale but without paymen ny rent, they could not be held to ossession being on the basis of m Panchayat. Thus, the defenda n of the land in dispute, the sa dinarily a Sarpanch is a trustee nst trust property. However, in h of the Gram Panchayat who w ts, who were third parties claim cordingly, the appellate Court h tood established that the defenda dverse possession.

- ned ssue red. and was n of t of o be ants ame and was ming held

17.

11.11.1957 pass the Panchayat h should be made the defendants. knowledge of th 1957. Since the land thereafter, the learned Add plaintiff's suit w aside the judgm

18.

On noticed that its The sale deed d Harnam Singh i record to show t land in dispute Nonetheless, it w that the defenda alleged sale and corroborated fro D7, which cons property since 1

19.

Fee Court, the appel e appellate Court further notice sed by the Gram Panchayat itself had come to know of the sale o to the revenue authorities not to From this resolution, it was evi he possession of the defendants e defendants had remained in u they had perfected their title by ditional District Judge, Sangrur was barred by limitation, and acc ent and decree dated 21.04.1993 n the question of execution of execution stood proved from th dated 17.05.1957 was executed b in favour of the defendants. How that they had been authorised by e. The findings of the trial Co was held that it was the case of ants were in illegal possession o d that they were asserting hosti om the revenue record, as evide sistently recorded the possessio

¶957eling aggrieved by the judgme llant-plaintiff has filed the presen

ed that Ex.P1 is a resolution da f, wherein it was resolved that si of the suit property, representat o sanction the mutation in favour ident that the Gram Panchayat h s over the land right from the y uninterrupted possession of the y adverse possession. Consequen r, came to the conclusion that ordingly allowed the appeal and 3 passed by the learned trial Cour the sale deed, the appellate Co he evidence led by the defenda by Sarpanch Dalip Singh and Pan wever, no resolution was brought y the Gram Panchayat to transfer ourt on this point were affirm f the plaintiff Gram Panchayat it of the land in dispute ever since ile possession. This fact also sto enced by the Jamabandis Ex. D3 on of the defendants over the ent passed by the lower appell nt Regular Second Appeal.

- ated ince tion r of had year suit ntly, d set rt. ourt nts. nch t on med. self ood 3 to suit

20.

Up Submissions of

21.

Lea is legally entitle suit land is own with the Rules p

22.

suit is 30 years limitation. The they have failed Gram Panchaya

23.

in their written possession again sale deed canno also submits tha date of their ho defendants have dated 17.05.195 possession. Submissions of

24.

this suit land w transferred by executing a va on notice, respondents appeared f learned counsel for the appell arned counsel for the appellant s ed to take possession of the suit l ned by them and the same can prescribed under the Act. e learned counsel further submi s from the date of alleged sale onus with regard to adverse pos d to prove on the file, the date of at. e learned counsel for the appell statement have nowhere pleade nst the true owner and their pos ot be termed as adverse possessio at the defendants have not led ostile and adverse possession to e entered upon the suit land on 57 and thereby their possession f learned counsel for the respon e learned counsel for the respo was owned and possessed by Dalip Singh and Harnam Sin alid registered sale deed date

d and contested the appeal. lant submitted that the Gram Pancha land by filing the present suit as only be transferred in accorda its that the limitation for filing e and as such the suit was wit ssession is upon the defendants their hostile possession towards lant emphasises that the defenda ed the date of the hostile and op ssession on the basis of the alle on in the eyes of law. The coun any evidence on the file about owards the Gram Panchayat. T n the basis of the alleged sale d n cannot be termed as on adve ndents ondents has argued that previou the Gram Panchayat, which w ngh in favour of respondents ed 17.05.1957 and mutation w

- ayat ance thin and ants pen ged nsel deed erse sly, was by

sanctioned in th the respondents such this sale de

25.

Lea be in adverse po further contend effect are legal.

26.

Lea the provisions o Act. The coun Civil Court to d power is vested

27.

Lea is for possession have been filed defendants. In Limitation Act,

11.11.1969 and Findings on Ju

28.

At been concurrent Gram Panchaya the present suit. call for further i

heir favour on 25.10.1978. Since are in continuous and peaceful eed is genuine one. arned counsel further contended ossession of the suit land and ha ed that the findings of the lear

arned counsel further argued tha of Section 13 of the Punjab Vil sel states that according to the determine the question with regar with the Collector, as provided u arned counsel for the responden n of immovable property on the d within 12 years from the date support of the same, the counse 1963 and reiterated that the s not afterword and it is thereby ti risdiction the outset, it may be noticed th tly decided by both the Courts at, and it stands concluded that t That finding is not under challe nterference.

e the date of execution of sale d l possession of the suit land and d that the defendants are proved ave become owners of the same. rned lower appellate Court to t at the suit of the plaintiff is hit llage Common Lands (Regulati above-mentioned act, it is not rd to nature of suit property but under Sections 7 and 11 of the A nts has strongly argued that the e basis of title and the same sho e of the adverse possession of el has referred to Article 65 of suit should have been filed bef ime-barred. hat the question of jurisdiction s below in favour of the plaint the Civil Court is competent to enge before this Court and does

- deed d as d to He this t by ion) Act. suit ould fore has tiff-try

Findings on the

29.

17.05.1957 (Ex. the defendants defendants. The the instrument common) lands Panchayat and t rules and, where Admittedly, the or Harnam Sing requisite statuto cannot be regard and must be hel away from the G Findings on Lim

30.

A s period applicab twelve years). owner's right to occupier and, im of the adverse ch the Gram Panch possession in 19 shows that the P e Sale Deed (Ex. D-1) e evidence on record establishes . D-1) was executed by Dalip Sin and that the execution of that e proof of execution, however, i is another. The statutory sch did not permit unfettered alienat the alienation of common land w e required by the rules, by prior re is no resolution of the Gram gh to effect sale of the shamlat la ory approval been shown. For th ded as a valid conveyance of the ld to be unauthorised and void in Gram Panchayat. mitation — accrual of cause of suit for possession founded on ble to suits for possession (Art The date from which limitatio o seek relief crystallises as a con mportantly, when the owner has o haracter of the possession. Ex.P-hayat had knowledge of the sale

¶957That contemporaneous inter Panchayat knew of the transactio

s that a registered instrument da ngh and Harnam Singh in favour document has been proved by is one thing and the legal effect heme governing shamlat (vill tion by private office-bearers of was to be governed by the statut r resolutions and official sanctio Panchayat authorising Dalip Sin and has been produced, nor has hese reasons the instrument Ex. D e proprietary rights of the Pancha nsofar as it purports to transfer t f action and its consequence n title is governed by the statut ticle 65 of the Limitation Act on runs is the date when the t nsequence of the adverse acts of or must be taken to have had not -1 dated 11.11.1957 establishes t and of the defendants' assertion rnal resolution cannot be ignored on and of the occupiers' claim lo

- ated r of t of age f the tory ons. ngh any D-1 ayat title tory — true f the tice that n of d. It

before the mut possession in 1 respect of a title

31.

Cou before the instit material as furth of cause of acti owner, having n treats the delay stale claim whe Consequently, th Findings on Ad

32.

it are the factual explains why t possession as o proving the ch ineffective to co

33.

Ad continuous, exc Court must loo possession had identifiable poin adverse possess D-7) consistent tation of 25.10.1978. Knowle 1957 is sufficient to start the r e-based claim. unting from 1957, more than tution of the suit in 1984. The la her corroboration of possession, ion when the owner was alread notice of adverse possession, re y as fatal to the remedy; equitab ere the statutory requirements fo he plaintiff's suit filed in 1984 is dverse Possession e execution of the deed and the l genesis of the possession they t the defendants came into poss wnership. The document theref aracter and origin of the poss onvey the Panchayat's title. dverse possession requires po clusive and hostile to the true o ok at the totality of facts to d the requisite hostile charact nt thereafter. From the evidenc sion are made out. The jamaban tly record the defendants in po

edge of the defendants' assert running of the statutory period the statutory period had elap ater sanction of mutation in 197 but it does not postpone the accr dy on notice in 1957. Where a t efrains from timely action, the l ble considerations do not reviv or adverse possession are satisfi s barred by limitation. defendants' assertion of title un thereafter asserted. In short, Ex.D ession and why they styled th fore has evidentiary significance session, even though it is lega ossession which is actual, op owner for the statutory period. T determine whether the occupie ter from the outset or at so ce on record, essential elements ndis and revenue entries (Ex.D-3 ossession of the suit land as g

- tive d in psed 8 is rual true law ve a fied. nder D-1 heir e in ally pen, er's ome s of 3 to

marusi; mutatio in the revenue dated 11.11.195 the defendants' awareness and evidence of prio mere passive o procured mutat notorious. Wher on Ex.D-1 and record, maintai ownership is th permissive occu

34.

with notice bu defendants as k coexist with pro had notice and holding, the run here, the posse permissive, nor their occupation of the defenda Panchayat. on in favour of defendants was u record Ex.D-2. The Gram Pan 57 demonstrate that the Panchay occupation even in 1957. The its intention to represent to or notice. Further, the defendan occupation. They asserted ow tion, and carried out acts of p re a party enters and holds unde treats the land as its own the ining exclusive control, and he conduct which is indicative upancy. e protest of Gram Panchayat o ut does not negate the hostile knowledge of the fact of posse otest. The legal effect of such kno d nevertheless did not, within nning of limitation in respect o ession claimed by the defend is there credible evidence that n as gratuitous on the contrary, th ants point to a possessory reg

ultimately sanctioned and reflec nchayat's own minutes i.e. Ex. yat had knowledge of the sale resolution records the Panchay the revenue authorities, which nts did not content themselves w wnership under a registered de possession which were open er a claimed title in the present c en securing entries in the reven undertaking acts consistent w of hostile possession rather th on Ex.P-1 resolution, is consist e character of the possession ession and of the alleged sale owledge is that, once the Pancha a reasonable period, disturb of possession begins. On the fa ants is not shown to have b the Panchayat consistently trea he revenue records and the cond gime hostile to the claim of

- cted P-1 and at's h is with eed, and case nue with han tent of can ayat acts een ated

35.

dismissing the s their title by wa The appellate C the Gram Panch land ever since D-7, to conclud marusi and that reasoning, it wa the very incepti become owners the learned lowe Conclusion

36.

Wi

04.11.1997 of th Regular Second

37.

Pen

September 22, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh e central reasoning adopted b suit of the Gram Panchayat is ay of adverse possession and th ourt relied upon Ex. P-1, a resolu hayat had knowledge of the de 1957. It also placed reliance on de that the defendants were show since no rent was paid, they cou as inferred that the possession o ion, and having continued for of the suit land. There is no infi er Appellate Court. th these observations, the impu he learned lower Appellate Cour d Appeal is dismissed. nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

by the lower appellate Court that the defendants have perfec hat the suit is barred by limitati ution dated 11.11.1957, to hold t efendants' possession over the n the jamabandi entries, Ex. D-3 wn in possession of the land as g uld not be treated as tenants. On t of the defendants was adverse fr more than twelve years, they h irmity or illegality in the findings ugned judgment and decree da rt is hereby affirmed and the pres stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

- in cted ion. that suit 3 to gair this rom had s of ated