C.R.No.3841 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3841 of 2009. Decided on: October 26, 2009. State of Haryana etc. .. Petitioners VERSUS Rajo Devi and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Kulvir Narwal, Addl.A.G., Haryana, for the petitioners. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Plaintiffs-respondents have sought a declaration that they are owners in possession of the property in dispute besides claiming a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants- appellants State authorities from dispossessing the plaintiffs. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.2008, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents holding that they being trespassers are not entitled to any relief of declaration or injunction. The lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.07.2009, held that the plaintiffs-respondents being in physical possession of the property in dispute are entitled to the relief of . . . 1 C.R.No.3841 of 2009 permanent injunction, as such, the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-appellants from dispossessing the plaintiffs (Dhan Singh, now represented through LRs), stands decreed by the lower appellate Court and the defendants-appellants have been restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs except in due course of law. The following point has been sought to be raised for adjudication in the present appeal: - “Whether the Court below has wrongly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents in view of the fact that the possession of the plaintiffs-respondents over the land in dispute, if any, was that of a trespasser only? After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the concurrent finding of fact by the Courts below that the plaintiffs had been in actual physical possession of the agricultural land measuring 16 kanals detailed in the heading of the plaint, he can certainly be dispossessed only by adopting due process of law as it is not established on the record that he had made an attempt from the very beginning to usurp the property of the State, in view of his possession having been established w.e.f., the year 1961. I have considered the contention of counsel for the State that possession of the plaintiffs-respondents has not been established by cogent evidence. I do not find any ground to interfere . . . 2 C.R.No.3841 of 2009 in the finding of fact that plaintiffs-respondents had been in actual physical possession though as a trespasser. In case the property vests in State, it is always open to the State to take the possession in accordance with law by even adopting summary procedure established under the law as the plaintiffs-respondents have been held to be trespasser/unauthorized occupant. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE October 26, 2009. rka . . . 3