Regular Second Appeal No. 1805 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1805 of 2005 Date of Order: 22.07.2009 Faquir Chand and others ....Appellants Versus Dhani Ram @ Mani Ram ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Sarju Puri,Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The appellants challenge the judgments and decrees dated 17.01.2002 and 09.11.2004, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balachaur and the Additional District Judge, Nawanshahar, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants. The plaintiff-respondent, filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that as he is owner in possession of the suit land, the defendant/appellants be restrained from interfering in his possession particularly over the shop constructed by him. Upon notice, the appellants filed a written statement pleading that the respondent had no locus standi to file the suit as the land which was originally Patti Rajputan vests in the Gram Panchayat. It was further stated that even if the respondent has constructed a shop, over a portion of the land, as the khasra girdawari records the appellant in possession, the relief prayed for cannot be granted. Regular Second Appeal No. 1805 of 2005 -2- On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be granted injunction as prayed for ?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit?OPD 3. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 5. Whether the suit land is a shamlat deh ?OPD 6. Relief.” After considering the arguments and the evidence adduced, the trial court held that as the respondent is in possession of the suit land, therefore, the appellants could not interfere in his possession or demolish his shop. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the appellants filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge,Nawanshahar, affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellants submits that the courts below could not have ignored the entries in the revenue record that reflect the appellants' possession. It is further submitted that as the suit land vests in the Gram Panchayat, no injunction could be granted to the respondent. It is argued that the courts below have committed an error in granting an injunction in favour of a tress-passer as the respondent has failed to establish his title or possession over the suit property. The alleged admission by the appellants that the respondent is in possession has been wrongly construed by the courts below. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Regular Second Appeal No. 1805 of 2005 -3- findings of fact recorded by the courts below particularly with respect to the respondent's possession are neither illegal nor perverse and should, therefore, be upheld. It is submitted that DW1 (appellant no.1) admitted during his cross-examination that the respondent Dhani Ram had constructed a shop over the suit land about seven years ago. He also admitted that the suit land is a part of Khasra No.193 min. As a result, the khasra girdwari relied upon by the appellants stands rebutted. It is further submitted that entries recording the Gram Panchayat's possession, were recorded during the pendency of the suit and were, therefore, rightly discarded by the courts below. It is prayed that as the impugned judgment do not suffer from any error of law much less raises a substantial questions of law, the appeal be dismissed. Counsel for the appellants has framed the following questions of law:- “(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff could be decreed despite the plaintiff having failed to proved his possession over the suit land? (ii) Whether the entries in existing in the revenue record in favour of the defendants could be ignored? (iii) Whether the findings of the Courts below on issue No.1 are wrong, illegal, and perverse? (iv) Whether the suit land which is shamlat deh as per revenue record could be held as belonging to Patti Rajputan? (v) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are wrong, illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence available on the file?” I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and decrees and find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, particularly as no substantial Regular Second Appeal No. 1805 of 2005 -4- question of law arises for consideration. The appellant, Faquir Chand in his deposition as DW1 has admitted that the respondent has constructed a shop over the suit land. As a result, the entry in the revenue record reflecting the appellants or the Gram Panchayat in possession stands rebutted. It, therefore, belies comprehension as to how the questions of law framed by counsel for the appellants arise for consideration. The question whether the property belongs to the Gram Panchayat or not is a matter to be be agitated before the Collector in proceedings under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act. The instant dispute pertains to possessory title and does not in any manner effect the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. The courts below have not held the respondent to be owner and therefore, the question of law as to the jurisdiction of the courts to entertain this dispute does not arise. As no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the present appeal is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the injunction granted in favour of the respondent shall not effect the rights of the Gram Panchayat in any manner whatsoever. July 22, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE