R.S.A.No. 2997 of 2007(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2997 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision:July 30, 2009 Surinder Pal ---Appellant versus Gram Panchayat ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate, for the appellant None for the respondent. *** SABINA J. Plaintiff – Surinder Pal filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful and physical possession. Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Hoshiarpur, vide judgment and decree dated 5.12.2002 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 26.2.2007.Hence, the present appeal. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional R.S.A.No. 2997 of 2007(O&M) {2} District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “In brief, the case of the plaintiff Surinder Pal was that plaintiff had been residing in his ancestral house and was also using the premises in dispute being part and parcel of his ancestral house since time immemorial and was situated within Lal Lakir of village Sarhala Kalan; that plaintiff had been using the site in dispute for tethering cattle and as Haveli and at present plaintiff was keeping two buffaloes in it; that door of the house of the plaintiff was opening towards the site in dispute and the two parnalas (spouts) and two ventilators in the eastern wall of the ancestral house of the plaintiff was present opening in the site in dispute; that the defendant had no concern with the site in dispute but was threatening to interfere in the peaceful and physical possession of the plaintiff to which the defendant had no right; that earlier plaintiff filed Civil suit for permanent injunction regarding the property in dispute against Surjit Singh in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hoshiarpur and order of status-quo dated 27.2.1997 was passed in his favour. However, Surjit Singh defendant made the statement that he would not interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the site in dispute; that the plaintiff also filed Civil suit against Balwinder Singh for permanent injunction with respect to the property in dispute and the said suit was decreed by the Court on 6.3.1998. However, the certified copy of the judgment of that case was not available because as per the report, the record had been burnt in the fire; that the defendant had threatened to R.S.A.No. 2997 of 2007(O&M) {3} interfere in the physical and peaceful possession of the site in dispute. Hence, the suit. The suit was contested by the defendant through its Sarpanch Daljit Singh, taking up preliminary objections that the plaintiff had concealed the material facts: that towards the eastern side of his house, there was a panchayat lane vesting in the Gram Panchayat running from East to West which was 13 feet wide and 50 feet long; that the plaintiff was trying to take possession of the public street on the false pretext that it was part of his ancestral house, that the letter No. 104 dated 22.1.1999 was issued in respect of the encroachment made by the plaintiff over the panchayat land; that the site plan furnished by the plaintiff was incorrect as the plot or house of Gurdit Singh was not situated on the southern side, besides the plaintiff had not indicated the plot of Rattan Singh towards the south of the passage in question and that said passage was only approach to the plot of Rattan Singh who was residing in England; that plaintiff was not entitled to discretionary relief of injunction because of concealment of material facts. On merits, it was admitted that the ancestral house of the plaintiff was situated towards the extreme West of the lane. It was averred that portion towards the eastern side of the house of the plaintiff was part of the street which was in illegal occupation of the plaintiff and direction had been issued by the S.D.O. (Civil) Garhshankar for getting the same vacated from the plaintiff. It was averred that plaintiff had no right to tether his R.S.A.No. 2997 of 2007(O&M) {4} cattle in the village street nor he could encroach the public street. It was admitted that the lane in question was connecting the house of the plaintiff and was from West to East but the said street was also touching the plot of Rattan Singh, being the only approach and said Rattan Singh was away from India and the plaintiff in his absence wanted to encroach the said passage. It was averred that plaintiff was wrongly claiming the site in dispute as part of his property. It was averred that plaintiff had another site which was situated towards the northern side of the street in dispute and the level of the lane was higher from the plot of the plaintiff on the northern side by 20' and to approach the said plot, the plaintiff had constructed stair-case up to the depth of his plot. It was averred that the previous litigation between the plaintiff and Surjit Singh or Balwinder Singh had no bearing on the present litigation because in that case, Gram Panchayat was not a party. The further plea was that plaintiff had no right to encroach the panchayat land, and even the plaintiff had not place on record sale-deed in respect of 7 marlas of land which he was claiming his personal property and that the same was part and parcel of the public street vesting in the Gram Panchayat. It was then the plea that the Gram Panchayat had every right in the public streets and to seek the removal of the encroachment and prayer was made for dismissing the suit with special costs of Rs. 2,000/-.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- R.S.A.No. 2997 of 2007(O&M) {5} “(1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction prayed for? OPP (2)Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the premises in dispute? OPP (3)Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court? OPD (4)Whether the site plan annexed with the plaint is incorrect?OPD (5)Relief After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-gram panchayat from interfering in his peaceful possession of the premises in dispute. Parties led their evidence. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record have held that the existence of public street 30' wide and 50' in length was established on the Eastern side of the house of the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to permanent injunction from restraining the Gram Panchayat from seeking removal of encroachments of the plaintiff from the public street. Learned Additional District Judge in its judgment has observed that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was using the site in dispute, for tethering his cattle etc. Moreover, the courts below have given a finding of fact that the suit property was a public street. Finding of fact R.S.A.No. 2997 of 2007(O&M) {6} cannot be interfered with by this Court in appeal. Plaintiff cannot be allowed to encroach upon a public street. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 30, 2009 PARAMJIT