R.S.A. No. 3904 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3904 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.11.2008 Gram Panchayat, Inder Garh, Tehsil Mehtam, District Rohtak. ..Appellant v. Ishwar Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for the appellant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The defendant is in appeal against concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below, whereby the suit filed by respondent No.1- plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the property owned by him was decreed. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No.1- plaintiff filed a suit stating that he was absolute owner in possession of plot comprised of khewat No. 1 min/1, Khatoni No.1 min khasra No. 585, measuring 3 kanals 1 marla, situated at Mouja Chandi, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak, which was bounded as under: East: 203' plot No. 584 of Ram Avtar etc. West: 165' plot of Baghrawat, Ranbir etc. North: 93-1/2 house of others South: 93-1/2 rasta. It was further stated that on some portion of the said plot, house had been constructed. On 7.7.1997, the site in dispute was demarcated from Halka Kanungo with the help of Halka Patwari. When dispute was raised, it was got demarcated again by Office Kanungo and respondent No.1-plaintiff was not found in possession of even an inch of land more than what he is owning. The cause of action to file the suit arose as respondent No.1-plaintiff had strained relations with respondent-defendant No.3, the then Sarpanch, because of party faction. In fact, real uncle of respondent No.1-plaintiff had contested elections against the Sarpanch. It was in the demarcation subsequently carried out on 17.10.2002 in an arbitrary manner that respondent No.1-plaintiff was shown to be in unauthorised possession of two marlas of land. In response to the suit filed, the appellant-defendant admitted that R.S.A. No. 3904 of 2007 [2] respondent No.1-plaintiff was owner of plot No. 585. It was further alleged that he had encroached upon phirni No. 389, situated towards the south side of the plot. In the demarcation carried out on 17.10.2002, respondent No.1-plaintiff was found to be in possession of land in excess of his ownership. The learned trial court, on considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the parties, came to the conclusion that respondent No.1-plaintiff had not encroached upon even an inch of land. The enmity of the parties was writ large. It was further opined that demarcation report dated 17.10.2002 was procured in the absence of respondent No.1-plaintiff and further in the demarcation which was carried out on 27.11.2005, on the directions of the Court, it was found that respondent No.1-plaintiff was not in unauthorised possession of two marlas of land, as was sought to be pleaded by the appellant- defendant. The findings of the trial court were upheld by the lower appellate court. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submitted that the courts below have gone wrong in recording a finding that respondent No.1-plaintiff was not in unauthorised possession of two marlas of land which, in fact, was evident from the demarcation conducted on 17.10.2002. There was no question of any enmity as the ownership and the demarcation of property is a matter of record. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It was not only two demarcations earlier got conducted by respondent No.1-plaintiff, but even during the pendency of the suit also on the directions of the Court, the demarcation of the property in dispute was conducted by Naib Tehsildar on 27.11.2005 and it was found therein that respondent No.1-plaintiff was not in unauthorised possession of even an inch of land of the phirni, as was sought to be alleged by the appellant-defendant. Respondent No.1-plaintiff was found to be absolute owner of plot No. 585, measuring 3 kanals 1 marla. The boundaries of plot in his possession were found to be tallying with the boundaries, as mentioned in the revenue record. Once an officer of the rank of Naib Tehsildar had demarcated the land and compared the boundaries thereof with the revenue record, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in decreeing the suit of respondent No.1- plaintiff. The findings recorded by the courts below are plain and simple findings of fact giving rise to no question of law, much less a substantial question of law. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) 7.11.2008 Judge mk