IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1570-1995 Bahadur Singh (since deceased) thr LRs .. . . Appellant(s) Vs. Gram Panchayat Duman . . . . Respondent **** Reserved on: 23.02.2026 Pronounced on: 25.02.2026 Pronounced fully/opera7ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Lavish, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr. Pankaj Dhingra, Advocate for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The plain)ff is before this Court in the present Regular Second Ap- peal assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, whereby his suit for permanent injunc)on in respect of the suit property was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.02.1993, and the appeal preferred there against was also dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court vide judgment dated 05.05.1995. 2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the par)es shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. According to the plain)ff, he is in possession of the suit property measuring 220 4. × 90 4., shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint and marked by le7ers ABCD, situated within the Abadi Deh of village Duman, Tehsil Gurgaon. The plain)ff asserted that he and his predecessors had been in possession of the property for the last 80–90 years, and that his father NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.25 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1570-1995 had raised a kacha boundary wall around the property about 15 years prior to the filing of the suit. It was further pleaded that a chappar existed on the property, which was destroyed during floods. Alleging that the defendant–Gram Panchayat was a7emp)ng to dispossess him forcibly and illegally, the plain)ff sought a decree of permanent injunc)on restraining such interference. 4. The defendant–Gram Panchayat raised preliminary objec)on regarding the jurisdic)on of the Civil Court. On merits, it denied the possession of the plain)ff and asserted that the suit land vested in the Gram Panchayat, which was in exclusive possession thereof and intended to u)lize the same for construc)on of a Panchayat Ghar. 5. In replica)on, the plain)ff asserted that the suit property formed part of Khewat/ Khatauni No. 315/442, Rectangle No. 52, Killa No. 20/6 (7-2) situated within Abadi Deh and, therefore, did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. 6. Upon apprecia)on of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court held that the Civil Court had jurisdic)on but concluded that the plain)ff had failed to establish possession over the suit property. The trial Court further held that the earlier judgment dated 02.11.1988 relied upon by the plain)ff was not binding upon the Gram Panchayat, as it was not a party thereto. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. 7. The learned first Appellate Court, on re-appraisal of the evidence, affirmed the said findings and dismissed the appeal. 8. Assailing the concurrent findings, Learned senior counsel for the appellant contends that the suit property forms part of Abadi Deh; that the plain)ff’s possession had been recognised in earlier li)ga)on; and that the Gram Panchayat cannot dispute the existence of Abadi Deh. Reliance is placed upon Ajaib Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others, 2023(1) Law Herald 278. Page 2 of 4 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.25 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1570-1995 9. A4er hearing learned counsel for the par)es and perusing the record, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. 10. The earlier judgment Ex.P-1 relied upon by the plain)ff was rendered in a suit, wherein the Gram Panchayat was not a party. It is a se7led principle that a judgment does not bind a person, who was neither a party nor claiming through a party to the earlier proceedings. The Courts below have, therefore, rightly held that the said judgment could not operate against the Gram Panchayat. 11. The revenue record (jamabandi) describes the land as Abadi Deh in both ownership and possession columns. The learned first Appellate Court has correctly examined the statutory scheme of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regula)on) Act, 1961, par)cularly Sec)on 2(g), which includes within the defini)on of Shamlat Deh vacant land situated in Abadi Deh not owned by any individual. By virtue of Sec)on 4 of the Act, all rights, )tle and interest in Shamlat Deh vest in the Gram Panchayat. Consequently, in the absence of proof of private ownership or lawful exclusive possession, such land would vest in the Panchayat. 12. The plain)ff did not claim )tle and sought injunc)on purely on the basis of possession. Both Courts below, a4er evalua)ng the evidence, have concurrently held that the plain)ff failed to establish possession. The mere allega)on of raising a kacha boundary wall or existence of a chappar, especially when the land is a vacant Abadi Deh site commonly used by villagers, does not cons)tute proof of se7led or exclusive possession. Conversely, the Gram Panchayat produced resolu)ons evidencing its inten)on to u)lize the land for construc)on of a Panchayat Ghar, suppor)ng its possession. 13. The reliance of Ld. Counsel for appellant on Ajaib Singh’s case (supra) is misconceived. In that case, the dispute turned on contradictory revenue entries and official reports nega)ng the existence of Abadi Deh. In the present case, the Gram Panchayat does not dispute that the land forms part of NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.25 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1570-1995 Abadi Deh. Rather, the controversy relates to possession and statutory ves)ng. Hence, the said precedent does not advance the appellant’s case. 14. The findings recorded by the Courts below regarding possession and ves)ng are pure findings of fact based on apprecia)on of evidence. It is well se7led that in a Regular Second Appeal, interference is permissible only where a substan)al ques)on of law arises. No perversity, misreading of evidence, or illegality has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference. 15. No substan)al ques)on of law arises for considera)on in the present appeal. The concurrent findings are well-reasoned and do not suffer from any jurisdic)onal error, perversity, or legal infirmity. 16. Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 25.02.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Uploaded on : 25.02.2026 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.25 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document