RSA No. 2461 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2461 of 2006 Date of Decision: January 20 , 2010 State of Punjab and others ...... Appellants Versus Kallu Din and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab for the appellants. Ms.Kuldeep Kaur Ghuman, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for permanent injunction restraining the State of Punjab and its functionaries from interfering in the property in dispute which comprises of a Masjid, a Kabristan and Gair Mumkin abadi. The plea of the State of Punjab is that it had purchased the land from the Union of India in 1961 as unallotted evacuee land and that thereafter it was transferred to the Forest Department and that the Jamabandies from 1962 to 1979 clearly show that there is forest growth on the land in dispute. The Courts below, however, on a conspectus of the RSA No. 2461 of 2006 2 entire evidence (including the statement of the Range Forest Officer as well as the report of a local commissioner) came to the conclusion that the existence of Masjid and Kabristan is proved as also the residences of the respondents in the area. The mere fact that the land was transferred as unallotted evacuee land would not entitle State of Punjab to alter the existing user. Further the person residing in the Gair Mumkin abadi could not be disturbed except in due course of law. Consequently both the courts decreed the suit. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the land in dispute was forest land or not, as per the available documents, mutation, Khasra Girdawari? ii)Whether the respondent/plaintiff were in lawful possession of the land in dispute and were entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for and the property whether was being used by Muslims for buying dead bodies, performing Namaz and other common purposes? iii)Whether the suit as proved is maintainable in a Ciivl Court? It would be seen that questions No. (i) and (ii) are pure questions of fact. Learned DAG has taken me through the findings of the Courts below recorded thereon but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. In any case whatever plantation has been made by the Forest Department can co-exist with the Masjid, the Kabristan and the abadi without disturbing them. As far as question No (iii) is concerned, learned counsel has not been able to show how the present suit is not maintainable. RSA No. 2461 of 2006 3 Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 20, 2010 sunita