RSA No.207 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.207 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.3.2010 Chanan Dass ......Appellant(s) Versus Gram Panchayat and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is plaintiff’s second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from taking the forcible possession of the land in dispute, was dismissed. As per the averments made in the suit, the appellant was in possession of the suit property and had raised construction about 25 years ago without any objection. The defendants had no title, right or interest to interfere in the aforesaid suit property. It was submitted that earlier Gram Panchayat tried to dispossess the plaintiff. Demarcation was carried out. The plaintiff earlier filed a suit on 12.7.2000. Defendant-Gram Panchayat appeared in the suit and made a statement that the plaintiff would not be dispossessed except in due course of law and the said suit was decided on 2.1.2001. It was further averred that now the defendant had issued notice under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Thus, it was submitted that issuance of the notice was causing apprehension of dispossession at the hands of the defendant-respondents which necessitated the filing of the present suit. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was denied RSA No.207 of 2010 (O&M) 2 that the plaintiff was owner of the suit property and was in possession or that he had raised a pucca construction. It was submitted that previously the plaintiff filed a suit with false pleas. The suit land along with adjoining land formed part of Shamlat Deh under the Gram Panchayat. It was, however, admitted that a statement was made in the earlier suit that the plaintiff would be dispossessed only in due course of law. It was further stated that with a view to stop illegal design of plaintiff-appellant from encroaching upon the suit land, a notice was issued to the plaintiff- appellant asking him to remove illegal encroachment. It was further resolved by the Gram Panchayat to eject the appellant from the suit land in case he fails to remove the encroachments. Thus, denying allegations it was stated that the suit was filed with a attempt to encroach upon the public land. With these submissions, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. On appreciation of evidence both the Courts below held against the appellant and dismissed his suit. Still not satisfied, the appellant has approached this Court by way of filing this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant being in settled possession was entitled to the injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing him forcibly and except in due course of law. Thus, according to him, the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal: “(i) Whether the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to injunction from forcible dispossession by the respondent-defendants once the factum of his possession is admitted by the respondent-defendants? (ii) Whether the respondent-defendants can take forcible dispossession in spite of the fact of making contrary statement in the earlier suit filed by the RSA No.207 of 2010 (O&M) 3 appellant-plaintiff? (iii) Whether the suit of the appellant-plaintiff is maintainable on the apprehension of forcible dispossession by the respondent-defendants? (iv) Whether the impugned judgment and decrees passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside being illegal, arbitrary and against the evidence available on the file?” I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of this appeal. It is not in dispute that the respondents had issued notice to the appellant under Section 24 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has the remedy under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act against the issuance of the aforesaid notice. It may also be noticed that Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act bars the grant of injunction when any other equally efficacious remedy is available. Moreover, the defendant-respondents were adopting the due process of law against the appellant. No injunction could be granted in favour of the appellant restraining the defendants from adopting the due process of law. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. March 26, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE RSA No.207 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act is reproduced below:- “41(h) Injunction when refused- An injunction can not be granted when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust.”