RSA No.4296 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.6835- C of 2010 & RSA No.4296 of 2009 Decided on : 01.07.2010 Municipal Committee, Sampla ... Appellant versus Ratni Devi & orthers ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present : Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. CM No.6835- C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the order dated 12.05.2010 passed by this Court is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.4296 of 2009 This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiffs- respondents for declaration to the effect that the entries in the revenue record from the year 1999-2000 and that name of plaintiff- respondent was liable to be entered in the column of cultivation in favour of the appellant were illegal, was decreed. The consequential relief of permanent injunction was also granted restraining the appellant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs- RSA No.4296 of 2009 (O&M) -2- respondents over the suit land except in due course of law. As per the averments made in the suit, Jage Ram (predecessor-in-interest of respondents) was the permanent resident of the village Sambla and was in possession of the suit property for the last 60 years and his name was duly recorded as such in the revenue record upto the year 1994-95. However, in the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 in the column of possession, the entry was made in favour of the appellant whereas after the death of Jage Ram, the entry of possession should have been recorded in favour of the plaintiffs- respondents. It was further averred in the suit that the plaintiffs/respondents are in continuous possession of the suit property and also have constructed their pucca house at the disputed site and the appellant, without any right, title or interest and without following proper procedure of law, was threatening to interfere in their possession. The appellant was requested to desist from its intended illegal acts but it refused to do so. Hence the present suit was filed. On notice, appellant filed the written statement by taking various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that the suit property was owned and possessed by the Gram Panchayat (Predecessor-in-interest) and Jage Ram, ancestor of the plaintiffs/respondents had no right or concern over the suit land, and the respondents have not availed the proper remedy for correction of the revenue entries at appropriate time. Remaining allegations were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. Both the courts below on appreciation of evidence recorded a concurrent finding of fact that plaintiffs-respondents were in continuous possession of the suit property and the name of Jage Ram was entered in the revenue record in the column of cultivation/ RSA No.4296 of 2009 (O&M) -3- possession upto the year 1994-95. Even the aforesaid findings recorded by the Courts below could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the courts below any interference is hardly warranted by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC as in the impugned judgment and decree the appellant has only been restrained from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs- respondents over the suit property except in due course of law. No substantial question of law arises. No other point has been argued. Dismissed. July 01, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) sonia JUDGE