Civil Revision No. 6605 of 2010 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6605 of 2010 Date of decision. 04.10.2011 Jagir Singh .... Petitioner Versus Block Development and Panchayat Officer Adampur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Ankur Soni, Advocate for Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. The plaintiff Jagir Singh through his attorney Hardip Singh is before me in this revision petition as petitioner. The revision petition has been brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.04.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar and the order dated 02.06.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the application and appeal of Jagir Singh,plaintiff for grant of ad-interim injunction have been dismissed. Civil Revision No. 6605 of 2010 --2-- The plaintiff had filed the suit claiming that he is in possession of 13 marlas of land situated within the lal lakir of village Shahpur. It was claimed that this property was purchased by Gurbachan Singh, his brother on 16.11.1965 and in family settlement, this property came to his share. The plaintiff has claimed that he has raised a boundary wall over the land in question and has put up a gate thereon. He has also claimed having put up shed and mangers for cattle there and has also installed a water pump and fodder cutting machine run with the help of electric motor in the said property. He has also claimed an electric connection to have been taken by him in the property in question. It is averred that the defendants claimed the plaintiff to have encroached upon the street and they want to demolish the property of the plaintiff. Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Adampur,(for short 'the BDPO'), defendant no.1 resisted the claim of Jagir Singh, plaintiff and has averred that he has encroached upon a public street and that the BDPO is entitled to get the said street restored to its original position by demolishing the construction of the plaintiff thereon. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, had passed the order dated 10.04.2009 dismissing the application of the plaintiff. The appeal of the plaintiff was heard by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar and the same has been dismissed vide decision dated 02.06.2010. Civil Revision No. 6605 of 2010 --3-- Aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions, the plaintiff has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Ankur Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner had been seeking time for placing on record some demarcation report. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no such demarcation report with the petitioner. The question of encroachment of land depends for its decision on demarcation of the same at the spot. A person demarcating the various properties at the spot can find out if there is any encroachment by a person on the property of the other. Here the property alleged to have been encroached by the plaintiff is the public street. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed the suit through his attorney Hardip Singh, who happens to his son. This Hardip Singh had filed a suit earlier, in which ad-interim injunction was sought. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar allowed the said application and made the stay order in favour of Hardip Singh. The appeal preferred against the said stay order has been allowed on 08.05.2004 on the ground that the suit was bad for filing the same without serving the defendants with notice under section 80 CPC as also without seeking exemption from the court under the provisions of section 80(2) CPC. After the same, Hardip Singh did not pursue the suit and the same was dismissed for default of appearance on 13.12.2007. Civil Revision No. 6605 of 2010 --4-- Hardip Singh then filed a writ petition before this court and the same was disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to seek any other remedy available to him in law. Defendant no.1 had given notice to the plaintiff for removal of the encroachment. Inderjit Singh and Hardip Singh, in view of the directions of this court, filed a representation dated 1.5.2006 before the BDPO. Inderjit Singh and Hardip Singh had stressed on demarcation of the area claimed to be under their encroachment. The said demarcation was got conducted by the BDPO and at the time of said demarcation, Inderjit Singh and Hardip Singh intentionally absented themselves from that place. The plaintiff was found to be in an unauthorized possession of the land of the street. The demarcation report which was claimed by the petitioner to be in his favour has not been placed on the file despite opportunity. In the event of failure of the plaintiff to produce the said demarcation report, it can be inferred that there is no such demarcation report showing the plaintiff to be in possession of the property of his ownership and that he has not encroached upon any part of the street. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no illegality having been committed by learned courts below in declining the prayer of the petitioner for ad-interim injunction. The revision petition is, therefore, found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 04.10.2011 dinesh