Regular Second Appeal No. 5028 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 5028 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision : April 26, 2011 Kulwant Singh ....Appellant versus Commandant Border Security Force, Mamdot and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Raj Kumar Kakkar, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 14768.C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 24 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 5028 of 2009 Plaintiff Kulwant Singh having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff alleged that he is in possession of the suit land measuring 90 kanals 7 marlas which is owned by Provincial Government but the defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiff therefrom. Accordingly, plaintiff sought permanent injunction. Defendants – Border Security Force (BSF) and Union of India pleaded that BSF is in possession of 193.5 acres land including the suit land Regular Second Appeal No. 5028 of 2009(O&M) -2- since 1967 and is paying lease money to the Provincial Government. Plaintiff has no concern with the suit land nor he is in possession thereof. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 23.2.2008 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 11.4.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of khasra girdawari since kharif 2000 till rabi 2004, the plaintiff is proved to be in possession of the suit land. The contention cannot be accepted. Defendants have been recorded to be in possession of the suit land prior and subsequent to the aforesaid khasra girdawari entries. Consequently, the aforesaid stray khasra girdawari entries in favour of the plaintiff without any basis do not carry any probative value to depict the possession of the plaintiff. The aforesaid entries in favour of the plaintiff were changed without any notice to the Provincial Government (owner of the suit land) or to the defendants who were previously recorded to be in occupation of the suit land. Consequently, the said change in khasra girdawari in favour of the plaintiff is illegal and null and void and unsustainable in law. It is also significant to notice that the plaintiff has not even pleaded as to since when he is in possession of the suit land and in what capacity and how he came in Regular Second Appeal No. 5028 of 2009(O&M) -3- possession thereof. Admittedly, he is not paying any rent or lease money to the owner Provincial Government. It is also not the case of the plaintiff that possession of the suit land was delivered to him either by Provincial Government or by defendants. From the aforesaid, it is manifest that the plaintiff is not proved to be in possession of the suit land. His claim is frivolous and meritless. Plaintiff has been rightly non-suited by the courts below. Concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below against the appellant is fully justified by evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. Defendants have produced receipt of payment of lease money for the suit land and other land by them to owner Provincial Government and thus, defendants are proved to be in possession of the suit land in view thereof and also in view of entries in revenue record. Finding recorded by the courts below against the plaintiff-appellant does not warrant interference in second appeal as it is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. The plaintiff-appellant without any right, title or interest wants to grab valuable suit land measuring more than 11 acres belonging to Provincial Government and in possession of the defendants. This cannot be permitted. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely frivolous and meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) April 26, 2011 Judge 'dalbir' Regular Second Appeal No. 5028 of 2009(O&M) -4-