RSA No.3827 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3827 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 27.11.2008 Kishan Chand ......Appellant Versus Gram Panchayat, Panihari ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. L.N. Verma, Advocate for the appellant. * * * This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the defendant-Gram Panchayat has been accepted and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, has been set aside, resultantly, dismissing his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into his possession over the suit land and further restraining the defendant from dispossessing him from the suit land forcibly and illegally except in due course of law. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per plaint are that the respondent-Gram Panchayat is the owner of the suit land and the plaintiff is in cultivating possession thereupon as Pattedar under the Gram Panchayat since the year 1975. on the spot, the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land and the entries in the revenue record are in his favour. However, due to factionalism in the village, the defendant has threatened to dispossess him from the suit land forcibly and illegally. Hence, the suit. RSA No.3827 of 2008(O&M) 2 Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit of the plaintiff by raising preliminary objections. On merits, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land at the spot. One Balbir Singh son of Tulsi Singh is the Pattedar of the defendant and the defendant is owner in possession of the suit land through its Pattedar. Since the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land so the question of his dispossession by forcible means does not arise and in fact, the plaintiff wants to forcibly and illegally occupy the suit land under the garb of the suit. All other averments made by the plaintiff have been denied and the dismissal of the suit is prayed by the defendant. The trial Court held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land but not as a Pattedar. Thus, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant restraining the defendant from dispossessing him forcibly and illegally except in due course of law. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant filed an appeal which was accepted and set aside the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2008 passed by the District Judge, Sirsa. Still not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that it stands duly proved from the evidence on record that the plaintiff-appellant is in possession of the suit land though his status cannot be said to be that of lessee/Pattedar, yet he cannot be ousted forcibly and the defendant can seek dispossession of the plaintiff only by following the due process of law. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex RSA No.3827 of 2008(O&M) 3 Court in Ram Gowda (D) by LRs v. Mr. Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs and another 2004(1) RCR 519 to contend that even a trespasser in peaceful manner is entitled to protection of law. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The plaintiff has claimed his cultivating possession as lessee since the year 1975 whereas the defendant's version is that Balbir Singh son of Tulsi Ram was cultivating the land at the time of filing the suit as lessee. From the respective stand taken by the parties, it is to be seen whether the plaintiff has been able to prove his possession being a lawful lessee over the land in suit which was filed on 2.6.2004. The Lower Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence has recorded a finding of fact that there is nothing on record that the plaintiff was even given the land in suit on lease forever and the latest revenue entries are also not in his favour. Nor there is any other documentary evidence present on record that he at the time of filing the suit in the year 2004 was cultivating the land in suit as Pattedar. Rather, Balbir Singh while appearing as witness of the appellant has stated that he was in cultivating possession of the suit land as Pattedar in the year 2002-2004. The entries of revenue record for the earlier years in favour of the plaintiff- appellant are of no help to him. The question whether appellant is in possession of suit land on the date of filing of suit is a question of fact which has been held against the appellant by the Lower Appellate Court. No perversity could not pointed out by the learned counsel in the aforesaid finding. There is no dispute with the proposition of law as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Gowda's case (supra), However, in this case, the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove his long and continuous possession till RSA No.3827 of 2008(O&M) 4 the date of filing of the suit over the suit land For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. November 27, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE