CWP No.2694 of 1988 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 2694 of 1988 Date of Decision: 29 - 11 - 2010 Godha Singh ....Appellant v. Municipal Committee, Bhiwani ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Om Parkash Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL) Plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit for injunction restraining Municipal Committee, Bhiwani from interfering in possession of the plaintiff-appellant over the suit property. It was pleaded by the plaintiff- appellant that disputed house is his ancestral property and the Municipal Committee has no concern with the ownership of the property. The defendant-respondent contested the suit and stated in a categoric terms that suit property belonged to Municipal Committee, Bhiwani. After conclusion of the pleadings, the following issues were drawn:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the property in dispute? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? CWP No.2694 of 1988 [2] OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the case? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable as no notice under Section 52 of the Municipal Act was served by the plaintiff on the defendant? OPD 6. Relief. Plaintiff-appellant himself appeared as PW1 and stated that previously on the disputed land there used to be a kachha nohra which was demolished by him about 7/8 years ago and he constructed three shops in place of old nohra which are in his possession. To corroborate his testimony, two witnesses, namely, Ram Niwas PW2 and Pratap Singh PW3 were examined. They stated that they were seeing the possession of the plaintiff-appellant for the last 25 years. Municipal Committee, Bhiwani examined DW1 Jagdish Gautam, Building Inspector. The cross-examination of this witness was deferred. However, Municipal Committee examined DW2 Hari Ram, Building Inspector in place of DW1 Jagdish Gautam. From the record Hari Ram DW2 proved that the land vested in the Municipal Committee. He proved the city plan as Ex.D1 and a letter Ex.D2 which was received in the Municipality from the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani. Except the bald oral assertion made by the plaintiff-appellant and his two witnesses, no document was tendered to prove ownership of the property. However, the trial Court decreed the same. Aggrieved against the same, the Municipal Committee filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court relied upon Exs.D1 and D2 proved by DW2 Hari Ram, Building Inspector CWP No.2694 of 1988 [3] and returned a categoric finding that the land in dispute is owned by the Municipal Committee, Bhiwani. The lower Appellate Court further held that earlier also the plaintiff-appellant had challenged the title of the Municipal Committee and un-authorised construction raised was removed by the Municipal Committee. The lower Appellate Court below held the plaintiff-appellant to be a trespasser. However, the Court held that trespasser cannot be removed from the property except in due course of law. The Appellate Court, thus, concluded as under:- “12. In view of my above discussion, I am of the considered view that the property in dispute is owned by municipal committee, Bhiwani, not by Godha Singh and he can be dispossessed in due course of law by the municipal committee, Bhiwani, if it so likes. Accordingly, cross- objections of Godha Singh are dismissed with costs while appeal of municipal committee on the point of ownership is accepted. Further, in other words, suit of plaintiff regarding ownership is dismissed and regarding injunction is decreed to the effect that it M.C. would not dispossess Godha Singh by forcible means. It shall dispossess him and take the possession, in due course of law. One copy of judgment be placed on the file of cross-objections, which are also dealt with this appeal and are disposed of accordingly. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly and the file be consigned to the record- room.” Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has stated that the lower Appellate Court has misread the evidence. After hearing counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, I am of the view that no substantial question of law arises which warrants interference of this Court. The lower Appellate Court had rightly come to the conclusion that merely oral evidence is not sufficient to hold that the CWP No.2694 of 1988 [4] land in question is owned by the plaintiff-appellant. No documentary evidence has been produced by the plaintiff-appellant to prove his ownership over the suit property. Further reliance was rightly placed on the evidence of DW2 Hari Ram, Building Inspector. Hence, no interference is warranted. Dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 29, 2010. JUDGE RC