R.S.A. No. 1530 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1530 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.4.2009 Phool Singh .......... Appellant Versus Gram Panchayat Ahmadpur Partal & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 4610-C of 2009 This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condoning the delay of 74 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the C.M. is allowed. The delay of 74 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. No. 4611-C of 2009 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of two days in filing the appeal. The averments made in the application, which are supported by an affidavit, discloses sufficient cause for condoning the delay of two days in filing the appeal. Consequently, the C.M. is allowed and the delay of two days in filing the appeal is condoned R.S.A. No. 1530 of 2009 2 R.S.A. No. 1530 of 2009 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 30.8.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff / appellant for permanent injunction against the Gram Panchayat and other defendants was ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff brought a suit for permanent injunction claiming a decree, against the defendants from demolishing any kind of construction over the property bearing Khasra No. 170 owned and possessed, by the plaintiff / appellant, and also from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Relief of mandatory injunction was also sought in alternative, in case the defendants succeeded in demolishing the house of the plaintiff / appellant with a prayer that the defendants be directed to restore the suit property to its original position. On notice, the suit was contested, wherein the ownership and possession of Khasra No. 170 by the plaintiff was admitted. The stand was also taken that the defendants do not intend to damage the house of the plaintiff existing in khasra No. 170. However, the defence taken was, that the defendant / respondents were to remove the encroachment from Khasra No. 168 which is 19 feet 6 inch street, which was said to have been encroached upon by the plaintiff / appellant. The finding was recorded by the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 holding, that the plaintiff had encroached upon the street in khasra No. 168 and they were ordered to remove the R.S.A. No. 1530 of 2009 3 encroachment, but said order was not complied with. The learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has encroached upon Khasra No. 168. The learned Courts also held that qua the dispute regarding the ownership and possession, with respect to Khasra No. 168, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, in view of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. Once a positive stand was taken that the defendant/ respondents were not interfering in possession of the plaintiff over khasra No. 170, and also that the encroachment from Khasra No. 168 was to be removed, the learned Courts below were right in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff / appellant for permanent injunction. This appeal, thus, raises no substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. 20.4.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE