Regular Second Appeal No. 2759 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 2759 of 2011 Date of Decision: 6.7.2011 Vijay Kumar …Appellant Versus The Municipal Council, Panchkula …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. H.N. Sahu, Advocate for the appellant. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant. He filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that notice dated 31.8.2005, issued by the respondent/Municipal Council, Sector 4, Panchkula, through its Executive Officer, under Section 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is illegal and demarcation done by the revenue officials is not correct as the appellant was not associated during the demarcation proceedings. The respondent/defendant took a plea that there was a public interest litigation filed in this Court, wherein the directions were issued that all the encroachments be removed. The respondents claimed that the land in question falls within khasra Nos. 60 and 61. According to the revenue record, khasra Nos. 60 and 61 is a gairmumkin phirni, (circular road) the rasta shar-e-aam. As Regular Second Appeal No. 2759 of 2011 2 per the finding, this khasra was earlier in the name of Gram Panchayat and after the boundaries of Municipal Council were extended, this property is in the name of the defendant/Municipal Council. Learned counsel for the appellant has proposed the following substantial question of law for consideration of this Court:- “That since the appellant is in possession of the property from the last 19 years, he could not be evicted except in due course of law”. Both the Courts below non-suited the appellant by giving the following concurrent findings of fact:- a) That notice dated 31.8.2005 was served upon the appellant for removal of the encroachment over the land measuring 36 x 22 in khasra Nos. 60 and 61. Service of the notice is not disputed. b) That the appellant/plaintiff has failed to specify that the boundaries or dimensions of property under his ownership, the pleadings and the evidence led to this effect are vague. c) Neither any date or specific year of purchase of land in possession of the appellant has been proved nor any sale deed, executed to this effect, has been brought on the record. d) That the appellant/plaintiff has not placed on record any copy of demarcation conducted by the revenue officials earlier to the impugned demarcation which could show that the property of the appellant/plaintiff Regular Second Appeal No. 2759 of 2011 3 is not in khasra Nos. 60 and 61. The questions, so proposed, as substantial in nature, in no way arise on the facts and circumstances of the case. A notice has been served upon the appellant under Section 181 of the Act to remove the encroachment, thus, the respondent is following due procedure prescribed under the law. In view of the concurrent findings of fact, returned by both the Courts below, the proposed substantial question of law, in no way, advance the case of the appellant. No other argument has been raised. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 6, 2011 “DK”