RSA No. 1129 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on 23.7.2010. State of Punjab and others --Appellants vs. Ravinder Singh Gill --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.R.L.Gupta,Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the appellants Mr.B.R.Mahajan,Advocate, for the respondents Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, This appeal is directed by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession of land has been decreed. Plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land measuring 4 kanal 11 marlas bearing Khewat No,317, Khatauni No.376, Khasra No. 1390/ 401,402,405 (9-2), as per jamabandi for the year 1995-96, situated in the area of Dakoha on the ground that he is owner of ½ share of the aforesaid land alongwith Smt. Hem Kaur (daughter of Jagdip Singh) and Iqbal Kaur (widow of Umrao Singh). Defendant No.3. has illegally occupied 9 kanals 2 marlas of the land mentioned in the plaint, out of which an area of 4 kanal 11 marlas is owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff moved an application RSA No. 1129 of 2010 (O&M) 2 seeking demarcation of the suit land, but defendant No.3. did not allow the plaintiff, Patwari Halqa and Kanungo to enter the land for the purpose of demarcation. The plaintiff requested the defendants to vacate the suit land but they refused. Hence the suit was filed. In the written statement, the defendants set up their ownership on the basis of adverse possession. On merit, it was admitted that the plaintiff was owner of 1/3rd share of the suit land which is in possession of Punjab Armed Police, since 1948, which falls within the periphery of P.A.P premises and is bounded . The suit land falls in the centre of complex and there is no approach to the suit land except by trespassing PAP complex. It was also alleged that there was no need for acquisition of the suit land as it was already in possession of Punjab Armed Police, whose possession is open, hostile,continuous,uninterrupted and exclusive in which the plaintiff cannot be allowed to trespass due to security point of view. Plaintiff filed replication reiterating the averments made in the plaint while denying those of the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 13.6.2000:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property, if so, its effect ? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit land measuring 4 kanal 11 marlas as alleged ?OPP 3. Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not served any legal and valid notice under Section 80 CPC? OPD Nos. RSA No. 1129 of 2010 (O&M) 3 5. Whether no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether the defendant has become the owner of the suit land by way of the adverse possession as alleged ?OPD 7. Relief: Both the Courts below have concurrently held that there is no evidence led by the defendants to prove that their possession has matured into ownership by adverse possession, The present appeal is filed by the defendants/appellants alongwith an application bearing CM No.3447-C of 2010 for condonation of delay of 23 days in filing of the appeal, in which notice of motion was issued. Another application bearing CM No.7441-C of 2010, has also been filed, for placing on record following amended substantial question of law:- “Whether the lower Court and the First Appellate Court were justified in not accepting the plea of adverse possession raised by the defendant/appellants, despite the fact that defendant/appelants are not in possession of any disputed property since 1948 ?” It appears that there is some error in the aforesaid amended substantial question of law as it seems that the appellants wanted to raise the question that the Courts below have erred in not accepting the plea of adverse possession of the appellants despite the fact that they are in possession of the disputed property since 1948. Mr.R.L.Gupta, learned Addl.A.G.Punjab, appearing for the appellants has argued that dehors marginal delay in filing of the appeal the RSA No. 1129 of 2010 (O&M) 4 appellants have a good case on merit as there is substantial question of law involved in this appeal with regard to the ownership of the appellants over the land in dispute by way of adverse possession. I have heard leanred counsel for the appellants and perused the record with his assistance. It is really surprising that plea of adverse possession is being raised by the State of Punjab and in particular by the Department of Police over the land of a citizen, who has not been paid any compensation. It is well settled that plea of adverse possession can neither be taken against the State nor in its favour. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. 23.7.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge