In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. C.R. No. 7171of 2009 Decided on December 21,2009. Tarlok Singh -- Petitioner vs. Gram Panhayat of village Bhadson --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.H.P.S.Ghuman,Advocate, for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) In this revision petition, the defendant has assailed order dated 12.4.2008 (Annexure P3) passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha,whereby an application of the plaintiff (Gram Panchayat) for temporary injunction restraining the defendant/petitioner from raising any sort of construction has been allowed and order dated 15.1.2009 (Annexure P4) passed by the learned Addl.District Judge, Patiala, vide which the trial Court order has been upheld. Both the Courts below have found that the property in dispute is shamlat deh (Gair mumkin ruri), owned by Gram Panchayat (plaintiff) which does not belong to the proprietors of the village as it is being used for common purposes. The defendant has not been shown to be connected with the property in question in any manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that C.R No. 7171of 2009 -2- the plaintiff (Gram Panchayat) has already filed a petition under Sections 4 & 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act,1973, therefore, the present suit could not have been filed and that the defendant would remove the malba/construction in case the decree is passed against him. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record The land in dispute is a gair mumkin ruri which is being used for common purposes of the village which cannot be allowed to be converted by the defendant to his personal use by raising construction nor construction could be allowed to be raised on the ground that he would remove the same in case suit is decreed against him. The defendant, in fact, could not show even prima facie that he is connected with the land in question in any manner. Therefore, presumption is that he is a trespasser and for that purpose, the learned Courts below have rightly granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff (Gram Panchayat) who is the true owner. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. December 21,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge