RSA No.3292 of 2009(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3292 of 2009(O & M) Date of Decision:07.07.2010 Sukh Dai & Ors. .... .appellants Versus Haryana State through Collector, Hisar & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.S.K.Verma,Advocate for the appellants **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgement and decrees of the courts below whereby his suit for injunction has been dismissed by the courts below. As per the pleadings, Chhailu Ram, plaintiff, predecessor-in- interest of the appellants was in possession of the house in dispute and was residing there along with his family. He had no other house to live except the house in question and was also paying Chulah tax to the Gram Panchayat. It was further stated that no ejectment order in respect of the house was passed by any competent court of law and he was coming in possession over the house in question continuously from the time of his ancestors. Respondent/defendant No.3, who was inimical towards him and his family with the aid of police, wanted to demolish his house and a day RSA No.3292 of 2009(O & M) 2 before filing the present suit, officials of the defendant-respondents along with police visited his house and tried to interfere in his peaceful possession by demolishing the same but the attempt was foiled. So the necessity arose to file the present suit to restrain the defendants- respondents from interfering into his peaceful possession over the suit property. Upon notice, a joint written statement on behalf of the defendant-respondents was filed and various preliminary objections were raised. On merits, it was submitted that as per the revenue record, defendants were owner in possession of the land in dispute. The plaintiff had made encroachment over the land in question, gifted to the respondents for construction of Health Centre by the Gram Panchayat and the plaintiff had recently constructed a cattle shed over the land just to grab the same. It was further averred that as per the demarcation report, plaintiff had made encroachment over the land in question which was earmarked for public purposes. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for. Plaintiff-appellant filed replication re-asserting his claim after considering the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, trial Court vide its judgement and decree dated 13.12.2006 dismissed the suit. The unsuccessful plaintiff preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgement and decree which was also dismissed vide impugned judgement and decree dated 09.04.2009. While upholding the judgement of the trial Court, the Lower Appellate Court held that respondents were the lawful owner of the property in dispute and therefore no injunction can be granted in favour of appellants who were in unlawful possession of the property. Still not satisfied, the plaintiffs have approached this Court by way of instant appeal. RSA No.3292 of 2009(O & M) 3 Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that appellants are in long settled possession of the property in dispute and could not be evicted without adopting due course of law and, thus, the appellants are entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed and, therefore, following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal for consideration: 1. Whether the courts below have misread, mis-appreciated, mis-interpreted and over looked the material oral and documentary evidence on record? 2. Whether the law of Estoppel is applicable in the present case keeping in view the evidence on record as well as the conduct of the defendants/respondents? 3. Whether the plaintiff/appellants are entitled to purchase the suit land in view of the policy dated 16.10.2000 issued by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana Government? 4. Whether the plaintiff/appellants can be evicted without adopting due course of law? 5. Whether the findings of the courts below deciding issue No.1 are against the law and evidence on record specifically in the circumstances when possession of the plaintiff/appellant is fully proved on record? I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgement and decrees of the courts below. Admittedly, respondents are lawful owners of the suit property. Appellants are not disputing the ownership of the respondents. The only argument raised before the Court is that on the basis of long settled possession, appellants were entitled to protect their long settled possession and could be evicted only in due course of law. It is well settled that no injunction can be granted against a true owner at the asking of a RSA No.3292 of 2009(O & M) 4 person who is in unauthorised possession. I find support to my aforesaid view from a judgement of this Court rendered in Sukhwant Singh vs.Divisional Forest Officer 2009(3) PLR 432. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 07.07.2010 neenu