RSA No.345 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.345 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.10.2011 Chetan ...Appellant Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate, for Mr.S.K.Verma, Advocate, for the appellant. --- A.N.Jindal, J. CM No.930-31C of 2010 For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in filing and refiling the appeal is condoned. Applications allowed. RSA No.345 of 2010 This is an appeal against the judgment dated 9.01.2009 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff (herein referred as the plaintiff) against the judgment and decree dated 8.12.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narwana vide which learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for RSA No.345 of 2010 2 permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the house in dispute. Facts in the back-ground of the case are that the plaintiff is in continuous possession of the house in dispute since 1950. In the year 1975 he constructed a pucca house at the same place. In the year 1995 Municipal Committee, Uchana wanted to demolish the house in dispute. Therefore, suit No.18 of 4.02.1995 was filed against the Municipal Committee, Uchana. Now on being threatened he had to file the present suit. Defendants No.3 and 4 contested the suit and submitted that the plaintiff is not the owner in possession of the said house. In fact, the land over which he claims his possession vests in the Municipal Committee, Uchana vide notification dated 16.1.2002. He forcibly encroached upon the same. Thus, the plaintiff has no title over the suit property and is not entitled to any injunction. From the pleadings of the parties as aforesaid, trial court framed the following issues on 3.09.2004:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property as alleged? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction? OPP 3. Whether defendant has illegally encroached upon the suit land? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the RSA No.345 of 2010 3 present suit? OPD 6. Relief. No document of title has been proved by the plaintiff in order to prove his ownership. As regards the ownership of Market land comprising in Khata No.730/1213 Khasra No.303/1, it vests in the State of Haryana vide notification dated 14.2.2000 and amended notification dated 16.1.2002, Government of Haryana had transferred the said land in favour of the Market Committee, Uchana. No evidence refuting the aforesaid documentary evidence has been led by the plaintiff. Copy of the jamabandi for the years 1998-99 reveals that Khasra No.303 is owned by Haryana Government and is in possession of the Market Committee. Nature of land in dispute, in the revenue record, is “gair mumkin mandi”. As regards the plea that earlier the plaintiff had filed suit No.18 of 4.1.1995 and it was decided in his favour on 11.8.1998, it is observed that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land as lessee but merely a trespasser. Consequently his suit was dismissed. He had taken a contradictory stand in the said suit, as such the court had further observed that the competent court would give definite findings separately regarding ownership and possession of the site in dispute. In such circumstances the judgment passed in said suit titled as Bal Raj Singh Vs. Mohan Singh, decided on11.8.1998, is of no consequence. As a matter of fact in the earlier suit, the plaintiff had claimed himself to be a lessee under the Municipal Committee, Uchana but he even could not prove himself to RSA No.345 of 2010 4 be a lessee over the said land. Even otherwise, in the previous suit the plaintiff had set up a plea that he had taken the land on lease from the gram panchayat but in the present case the plaintiff is claiming his ownership on the land in dispute. For the sake of argument, if the plaintiff is taken to be in illegal possession of the suit property even then the plaintiff having no title over the suit land is not entitled to any injunction. The findings recorded by the courts below are well founded and well reasoned. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration by this court. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 21.10.2011 Judge rp