RSA No.2875 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2875 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.12.2010 Dharampal and others ......Appellant(s) Versus Haryana State and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This second appeal is by the legal representatives of the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby plaintiff's suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit property, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering into his peaceful possession and restraining them from forcibly dispossessing the appellants in any manner, was dismissed. As per the averments made in the suit, the plaintiff has claimed ownership of the suit property submitting that the same has been inherited from his forefathers and is in his possession without any interruption for the last 100 years and the defendant-respondents, who have no right, title or interest in the same, want to take possession of the same illegally. The suit was contested by the respondents on the ground that the suit property is part of khasra No.83 of which Gram Panchayat was the owner and the appellants have encroached upon the suit property. RSA No.2875 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence found that the suit property belongs to the respondents and the appellants have encroached upon the same. Resultantly, the suit as well as appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed. Still not satisfied, the appellants are before this Court challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. The property in dispute is a courtyard. Keeping in view the stand taken by the parties, a Local Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court for demarcation of the suit property. As per the aforesaid demarcation report, which is per se admissible, the suit land is part of khasra No.83 and belongs to the Gram Panchayat and has been encroached upon by the appellants. In support of his case, counsel for the appellants has submitted that the demarcation report submitted by the Local Commissioner was not in accordance with law and the plaintiff had also raised his objections to the aforesaid report to the effect that his property was not demarcated and therefore, the findings on the basis of the aforesaid demarcation report are liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment and decrees. It is not in dispute that the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court is per se admissible. In the aforesaid report, it has been depicted that property in dispute is part of Khasra No.83 which belongs to the Gram Panchayat and the same has been encroached upon by the appellants. There is no evidence on record produced by the appellants to controvert the aforesaid demarcation report.Simply because the plaintiff has raised the objection that his property should have been also demarcated has no merit as the objection could have been sustained only if there was some material evidence on record to substantiate any RSA No.2875 of 2010 (O&M) 3 such objection. The plaintiff could have led evidence to substantiate his stand in which he has failed. Thus, it cannot be said that findings of the Courts below are perverse so as to attract the interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Section 100 CPC. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. December 9, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE