In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A. No. 2177 of 2005 Date of decision: July 24, 2008 Harcharan Singh ... Appellant versus Harmohan Singh and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Kuldip Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and restraining the defendant-respondent (herein refer as 'the respondent') from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff-appellant (herein refer as 'the plaintiff') and for demolishing any part of the house of the plaintiff as marked by letters “A, B, C, D, E & F” situated in the abadi of village Sagrana. The plaintiff has claimed that he is the absolute owner in possession of the house marked with letters “A, B, C, D, E & F” in the site plan annexed with the plaint situated in the abadi of village Sagrana and the defendants want to interfere in his possession and demolish the disputed portion of his house. The defendants on the other hand, besides raising many legal objections, submitted that the land as shown in the site plan attached with the plaint is the common street vesting in the Gram Panchayat. The plaintiff is trying to encroach upon the same illegally. The Gram Panchayat has given notice under Section 26 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 to the plaintiff on 15.4.2000 calling upon him to remove the construction from the street. Thereafter, obstruction was removed from the street on 15.7.2000. No permissible and reliable evidence has been produced on the R.S.A. No. 2177 of 2005 -2- record in order to establish that the disputed land is his ownership, rather on scrutiny of the evidence on record it was found to be the common street. The First Appellate Court, in para No.25 of the judgment, observed as under :- “Thus, while the plaintiff is not proved to be the owner of the disputed land which as per scrutiny of the evidence on record, is in-fact a common street, he had filed the present suit cleverly drafting the plaint so as to bypass the mandatory provisions of Section 13 of the Act. The Gram Panchayat was intentionally not impleaded as party to the suit so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the civil Court which was otherwise barred under Section 13 of the Act.” Now at this stage of second appeal, I refrain to interfere with this controversy which is a finding of fact. No substantial question of law is involved in the matter. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. July 24, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge