RSA No. 1254 of 2006 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1254 of 2006 Date of Decision: 8.9.2009 Smt. Sharma Devi ......Appellant Versus Lakhmi and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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? Present: Shri V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, with Shri Anuj Balian, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Sandeep Ganghas, Advocate, for respondent No.1. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The only substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the present appeal is “whether an unauthorised occupant can be evicted only in accordance with law?” The plaintiff-appellant has claimed possession in pursuance of agreements to sell dated 24.4.1995 and 25.7.2000, in respect of the suit land allegedly executed by one Babu Ram, Ishwar, Dayal Singh, Pahal Singh, Kamla Devi and Shimla Devi and Smt. Rajo Devi widow of Khajana and Mohd Iqbal. The suit land is a Shamlat Deh described in the revenue record as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rakab Rakba. The defendants have been impleaded as proprietors of the village, who, as per the plaintiff, are threatening to dispossess the plaintiff. RSA No. 1254 of 2006 (2) Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the revenue record from the year 1996-97 records the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Thus, the plaintiff, may be in illegal possession, is in established possession of the suit property, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be dispossessed, except in due course of law. The said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is sought to be supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda (dead) by LRs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by LRs and another, (2004)1 Supreme Court Cases 769, wherein it has been held that a person in established possession of land is entitled to protect his possession. Such proposition of law could not be seriously disputed by learned counsel for the respondent except to the extent that the plaintiff is not in actual possession. The revenue record supports the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is in possession. Such record has been disbelieved on the statement of attorney of plaintiff that he has not deposed that he is cultivating suit land for the plaintiff. It is not the case of the plaintiff that she is cultivating the suit property through her attorney. Therefore, the inference drawn by the Courts below is not legally permissible and cannot be made basis to rebut the revenue record. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of with the modification in the decree of the Courts below that the plaintiff-appellant cannot be evicted, except in due course of law. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 8.9.2009 ds