RSA No.2353 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2353 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:22.03.2010 Balwant Singh ....appellant Versus Commandant Border Security Force, Mamdot, Ferozepur & anr. .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reports or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. R.K. Kakkar, Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. CM No.6983-C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 252 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM disposed of. CM No.6984-C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, deficiency in affixing court fee of Rs. 2/- on judgement and decree is allowed. CM No.6985-C of 2009 CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Disposed of. RSA No.2353 of 2009 This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgement and decrees of the courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction RSA No.2353 of 2009 (O&M) 2 restraining the defendants from interfering forcibly in the actual and physical possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was dismissed. As per the averments made in the suit, the land in dispute was owned by Provincial Government and was in possession of the plaintiff-appellant. According to the appellant, the aforesaid possession was continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted and defendants had no right or interest in the suit land and they were not in possession. Since, defendant No. 1 threatened the plaintiff to dispossess from the suit land, the present suit was filed. The suit was contested by the respondents submitting that the land in dispute was in possession of Border Security Force which was paying the lease money to the Provincial Government qua 193.5 acres which includes the suit land and the same was in possession of defendant No. 1 even before the year 1967. Both the parties led evidence. After hearing both the parties, the courts below held that the appellant was not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and dismissed the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant. Still not satisfied, the appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgement and decrees of the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the findings of the courts below with regard to the possession of the land against the appellant are contrary to the evidence on record and, thus, the judgement and decrees of the courts below were liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the land in dispute was owned by Provincial Government and the appellant was entitled to seek injunction against the BSF who is not in possession of the suit land and thus the appeal is liable to be accepted. On the basis of the aforesaid argument learned counsel for RSA No.2353 of 2009 (O&M) 3 the appellant has submitted that following substantial question of law arises in this appeal: 1. Whether an unauthorised occupant of land owned by Provincial Government is entitled to seek injunction against the respondent i.e. BSF and the Union of India. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgement and decrees of the courts below. Admittedly, Provincial Government is the owner of the suit land. Both the parties are claiming possession over the suit land. It is not in dispute that prior to the year 1999-2000 respondents are shown to be in possession of the suit land. The respondents have also placed on record Ex.D-1 a receipt showing payment of Rs. 6,87,687/- as lease charges of 1548 Kanals 17 marlas of land including the suit land. The appellant is basing his claim on the basis of an order of correction in Khasra girdawaris by Assistant Collector Grade-II in his name from kharif 2000 onwards. However, the aforesaid order is not produced on the record of the file. Moreover, the aforesaid order of correction of khasra girdawaris in the name of the appellant was passed during the pendency of the instant suit. It is well settled that any such correction made in the khasra girdawaris during the pendency of the suit cannot be relied upon. On appreciation of evidence the courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff-appellant who is claiming possession over the suit land since year 2000 has failed to plead and prove his case especially as to when, how and in which capacity he came in possession over the suit land. In the absence of any material evidence in support of the case of the appellant, no interference is warranted in the findings of fact recorded by the courts below, while exercising power under Section 100 of the CPC. Thus, no substantial question of law as argued, arises in the present appeal. RSA No.2353 of 2009 (O&M) 4 No other point was urged. No merits. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 22.03.2010 neenu