RSA No.3609 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3609 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.11.2010 Gram Panchayat ......Appellant(s) Versus Rachpal Singh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh Thakur, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) Appellant-Gram Panchayat, village Kang has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction directing the defendants not to put their waste and rainy water into the land owned and possessed by them, was decreed. As per averments, the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land which is situated at village Dadwan and the defendants have got no right, title or interest in the same but they were bent upon to cause loss to the plaintiffs by putting waste and rainy water into their suit land. The appellant-Gram Panchayat had filed a joint written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP RSA No.3609 of 2010 (O&M) 2 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Relief.” It is not out of place to mention that suit against defendant No.5 was given up. Both the parties led ocular as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit land belongs to the plaintiffs who are residents of village Dadwan whereas the defendants were residents of village Kang. Hadbast of both the villages were separate. Even Panchayats of both the villages were also different and the defendants have no concern with the suit property and in view of the aforesaid facts, it was held that the defendants have no right to throw their waste and rainy water of their houses in the suit property through the drain. The appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree was also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court. Still not satisfied, the Gram Panchayat village Kang has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below submitting that the flow of water is from the side of village Kang towards the property in dispute and since formation of the villages, the waste and rainy water of the houses of the defendants is going towards the suit land which is a chapper and therefore, no injunction can be granted against them. However, on the other side, learned counsel appearing on RSA No.3609 of 2010 (O&M) 3 behalf of the plaintiff-respondents has submitted that once it has been found that the plaintiffs-respondents are the owners of the suit property and the defendants have nothing to do with the same, they were entitled to the injunction as granted by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the respondents has also argued that the appellant-Gram Panchayat has not shown as to how the appeal was maintainable and how the rights of Gram Panchayat village Kang have been infringed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the land in dispute is in the ownership of the plaintiff-respondents and the defendants have no right to throw their rainy and dirty water in this land. The contention of the appellant that the flow of water is towards the land in dispute and therefore, they cannot be directed not to throw the water in the disputed land is without any merit as the plaintiff-respondents, who are admittedly the owners of the suit property, are entitled to enjoy their property. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. November 22, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE