RSA NO. 4463 of 2004(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 4463 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 06, 2009 Rattan Singh ...... Appellant Versus Idol Lord Shri Krishan Ji and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. R.S.Ghuman, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Rajesh Chauhan, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration that his possession over the land belonging to the respondents has ripened into ownership by way of adverse possession with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the land, interfering into his peaceful possession and from dispossessing him in any manner except in due course of law. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that as per the settled position of law a suit seeking ownership on the basis of adverse possession does not lie. He has relied upon Bhim RSA NO. 4463 of 2004(O&M) 2 Singh and others v.Zile Singh and others reported as 2006(3) PLR 159 and Gurdwara Sahib Sannauli v.State of Punjab and others reported as 2009(2) PLR 756. Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to deny this state of the law. He, however, urges that no such plea was taken in the Courts below. In my opinion this being purely legal question regarding maintainability of the suit can be raised at any stage. Second argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that at least his possession ought to have been protected against any illegal attempts to dispossess him. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that this question has now become academic since the land has been acquired by the Batala Improvement Trust. Learned counsel for the appellant states that in case that is so he should be granted liberty to agitate his claim for his share of compensation under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. I find this to be a fair request. Consequently this appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, all the pending Civil Misc. Applications are disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE August 06 , 2009 sunita