RSA No.1742 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1742 of 2008 Date of Decision: 11.11.2009 Ram Dia .....Appellant Vs. Pale Ram and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Ravi Partap Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Priyanka Arya, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2, Mr. Surinder Dagar, Advocate for respondent no.3. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The appellant challenges judgments and decrees dated 31.8.2006 and 13.9.2007, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat and the Additional District Judge, Panipat decreeing the suit filed by respondents no.1 and 2 and dismissing his appeal, respectively. The plaintiffs/respondents no.1 and 2 filed a suit for mandatory injunction to direct the appellant to remove the encroachment in a public street denoted by the letters ABCD. The plaintiffs pleaded that the appellant has encroached upon a part of a public street by constructing a verandah. The encroachment hinders the plaintiffs in approaching their house. The defendant, appellant filed a written statement pleading that about 13 years ago, he had constructed a kutcha room denoted by the letters ABCD, which has now been cemented by laying a lintel roof. It was further pleaded that RSA No.1742 of 2008 2 the street is a blind alley that ends at the appellant's bara and, therefore, the allegations levelled in the plaint are false and incorrect. The Gram Panchayat-respondent no.3 supported the averments in the plaint. The trial court after considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, decreed the suit and directed the appellant to remove the encroachment. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. Counsel for the appellant submits that the suit land does not belong to the plaintiffs and at best vests in the Gram Panchayat, as it is a street. Respondents no.1 and 2, therefore, have no locus standi to file the suit. It is further submitted that the street ends at the property of the appellant and beyond this point is the lal dora and the abadi of the village. It is further argued that the courts below ignored the letter Ex.DW-2/B written by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, wherein he has specifically recorded that Street No.183 ends at the lal dora. It is prayed that in view of these facts, the courts below committed an error in decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal. Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the appellants raised construction in a public street. Whether the street ends at the lal dora or is a blind alley, is irrelevant. The letter written by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer had been considered and rejected by the courts below, as it has been issued without reference to any demarcation of physical inspection. It is argued that even if the street vests in the Gram Panchayat, the respondents were entitled to pray for removal of the RSA No.1742 of 2008 3 encroachment of a public street. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgements, considered the questions of law framed by counsel for the appellant and express my inability to hold that the impugned judgements suffer from any error, as would require interference. The offending construction, ABCD is admittedly situated in a public street. The appellant has no right to encroach upon the street or raise any construction. The argument that the street is a blind alley that ends at the appellant's property followed by the lal dora is entirely irrelevant. The appellant cannot be allowed to encroach upon or justify encroachment of a public property. It would also be necessary to mention here that by raising this construction, the appellant has adversely affected the free access of the respondents to their houses, which adjoin the street. The argument based upon the letter Ex.DW-2/B dated 1.1.2003, issued by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer is irrelevant, as unauthorised construction in a public street cannot be condoned. Furthermore, the jamabandi Ex.P-1 specifically records that Khasra No.183 measuring 0-8 kanals is a public street. The findings of fact recorded by the courts below that the appellant has encroached upon a public street and must, therefore, demolish the unauthorised construction cannot be faulted. As no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 11.11.2009 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE