IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH === Regular Second Appeal No. 3038 of 2007 Date of Decision: 19.2.2008 Saroj Sehgal and another --- Appellants Versus Haryana State Market Committee/Board Panchkula and others --- Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. N.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the appellants. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The appellants herein, Saroj Sehgal and others filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to provide a path and to restore the gate which was already in existence on the western side of the land being used as Rasta by them. It was claimed that the plaintiffs were owners in possession of agricultural land comprised in Khewat No. 789, Khatoni No. 951, Khasra No. 15/2 and 9, total measuring 16 Kanals, situated in the revenue estate of village Babain, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. This land was acquired by the defendants for construction of a Mandi. The plaintiffs used to go to their land from the western side of the land comprised in Khasra No. 15/2 and 9 till 15.2.1999 and their land had no other approach except through the land acquired by the defendants. The plaintiffs further prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the user of the said Rasta by them through the said gate or in any other manner obstructing their passage forcibly or illegally. RSA No. 3038 of 2007 The defendants in the written statement raised various preliminary objections and took a stand that after the acquisition of the land and payment of compensation therefor, the plaintiffs had no right to claim any passage through the land in question and the boundaries of the land of the Mandi for which the land was acquired, had been constructed since long and there was no passage as alleged by the plaintiffs. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence, found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove on record that they had any easementary right of Rasta from the land of the defendants that was acquired by them in the year 1976. More so, none of the plaintiffs stepped into the witness box to depose in support of their pleas. Babu Ram, the power of attorney of the plaintiffs Sanjeev and Saroj though stated, while appearing as a witness in Court as PW-4,, that on the western side of the land of the plaintiffs there was land of the Marketing Committee and at the time when the plaintiffs had purchased the land, there was a gate from the land of the Market Committee to approach the land of the plaintiffs. He further stated that the plaintiffs had purchased the land measuring 13 Kanals 7 Marlas vide registered sale deed dated 19.11.1999 and Kimti Lal, one of the plaintiffs, was going to his land from the land situated on the western side. This statement has not been supported by any other witness. In ultimate conclusion, the trial court held that the plaintiffs were the owners in possession of the land comprising Khasra Nos. 15/2 and 9, i.e. total land measuring 16 Kanals. However, they were not held entitled to any relief of injunction as according to finding recorded by the trial court they had failed to prove that there does exist any Rasta from the land of the defendants. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.1.2007. The findings recorded by the trial court were affirmed by the first appellate court and as a consequence thereof, the appeal preferred at the instance of the plaintiffs was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 4.5.2007. 2 RSA No. 3038 of 2007 I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiffs had not been able to discharge the burden put on them that they had any easementary right to use the Rasta through the land of the defendants. It was a categorical case of the defendants that after acquisition, a boundary wall was constructed around the acquired land as the same was meant for use of the grain market. At that time, the plaintiffs did not raise any objection for use of any part of the suit land as passage. The submissions so raised on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants did not find favour with the first appellate court. There is nothing wrong with the findings recorded by the courts below. The counsel for the appellant could not point out any error of law or perversity in the findings so recorded by the courts below so as to persuade this Court to interfere therewith. No substantial question of law arises in the appeal for the consideration of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) February 19, 2008 JUDGE *RKMALIK* 3