IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *** R.S.A. No. 4126 of 2007 Date of decision: 23.1.2008 Sumer Chand --- Appellant Versus Amar Singh and others --- Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal is the third consecutive attempt of plaintiff- Sumer Chand to get a decree for mandatory injunction directing defendant no.3 to restore to its original position, the portion of the land shown by letters BCXY in the site plan attached with the plaint and also to remove the bricks from the said portion. In his endeavour to get the above decree, the plaintiff filed a suit wherein he also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any further encroachment on any portion shown with letters ABC XFD in the site plans Exhibits P-1 and P-2, in any manner. The facts averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff was owner in possession of a Bara shown by letters ABCD in the site plan Exhibit P-1. The plaintiff had been using the said portion for placing Gohara and putting Kurdis (dung-hills) etc. but the defendants had been threatening to interfere in his possession and pave a passage with a RSA No. 4126 of 2007 view to encroach upon the portion shown by letters BCEF in the site plan. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant-Gram Panchayat executing its threat did encroach upon the portion of land marked BCXY owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff consequently amended the suit and brought on record the aforesaid subsequent development. Plaintiff faced contest from defendant-Gram Panchayat only. The other defendants, however, did not opt to enter appearance and were proceeded ex parte. It was pleaded on behalf of the contesting defendant that the plaintiff wanted to encroach upon a portion of the Gali which vested in it. It was disputed that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the Bara in respect of which the controversy arose. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had already encroached upon three feet wide area of the Panchayat and further wanted to encroach upon eight feet area of the Gali. It was asserted that the disputed portion of the land vested in the gram Panchayat. The trial court returned a finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove his ownership and possession over Khasra No. 114 with the help of any revenue document or that the defendant-Gram Panchayat had encroached upon any portion of the Bara comprised in Khasra No. 114. The trial court believing the report of the Local Commissioner, further held that it stood proved from the said report that a pucca street was constructed by the Gram Panchayat over the land owned and possessed by it. In view of these findings, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2005. 2 RSA No. 4126 of 2007 The first appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court on appeal carried at the instance of the present appellant and dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 17.4.2007. At the commencement of hearing before this Court, learned counsel appearing for the appellant did his best to assail the finding of the trial court which carry the seal of affirmation by the first appellate court. A perusal of the impugned judgments shows that the findings returned by the courts below are based on evidence. Nothing could be pointed by the counsel for the appellant, not to talk of any illegality or perversity in the findings, by reference to any material on record or otherwise which may persuade this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Nor could any substantial question of law be shown to have arisen for the consideration of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) January 23, 2008 JUDGE *RKMALIK* 3