Regular Second Appeal No. 2853 of 2011(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 2853 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.7.2011 Col. Joginder Singh (Retired) …Appellant Versus Municipal Council, Gurdaspur and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Ms. Ravinder Kaur Manaise, Advocate for the appellant. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Civil Misc. No. 7784-C of 2011 The present application has been filed for condonation of delay of two days in filing of the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, Civil Misc. Application is allowed. Delay of two days, in filing of the appeal, is condoned. Civil Misc. No. 7785-C of 2011 The present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 170 days in refiling of the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, Civil Misc. Application is allowed. Delay of 170 days, in filing of the appeal, is Regular Second Appeal No. 2853 of 2011(O&M) 2 condoned. Regular Second Appeal No. 2853 of 2011 Municipal Council, Gurdaspur, plaintiff/respondent No.1 instituted a suit for vacant possession of the land measuring 14 marlas comprised in the suit land, description and detail of which has been given in the head note of the plaint. It was pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 that the suit land is owned by the Municipal Council and the same was got demarcated vide report dated 28.4.1995. After the demarcation, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 asked the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the disputed property. But it was of no avail. A registered notice was also sent to the defendants but the same was received back as undelivered. The plaintiff/respondent-Municipal Council approached the defendants through its staff members to admit its claim and to hand it over vacant possession of the suit property. But the defendants refused to do so. Thereafter, a resolution was passed and the Municipal Council was authorized to file the suit. Upon notice, the defendants caused appearance and filed a written statement. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the suit. Furthermore, it was stated that the suit has not been signed and verified by an authorised person and it was time barred. On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff/respondent was neither owner nor in possession of the suit property and the revenue entries were incorrect and denied. It was further stated that even if ownership of the Municipal Council is proved, the defendants would become owners because of adverse possession. After the completion of pleadings, the trial Court had drawn the following Regular Second Appeal No. 2853 of 2011(O&M) 3 issues:- “1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit land after demolition of super structure? OPP 2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD 4) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5) Relief”. The parties led their evidence. The trial Court decided issues No.1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.4 was held to be redundant and the relief, as prayed for, was granted to the plaintiff-Municipal Council. While deciding issues No.1 to 3, in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No.1, the trial Court appreciated the evidence and took into consideration the revenue entries to hold that the Municipal Council, Gurdaspur, is owner of the property. Since the appellant/defendant admitted his possession, the trial Court held as under:- “12. Clear cut from the perusal of Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, Municipal Council is shown to be owner of the disputed property, whereas the possession is that of the defendant...” The trial Court further held that the appellant/defendant has failed to prove his adverse possession. Thus, the trial Court concluded that the disputed property is owned by plaintiff-Municipal Council, Regular Second Appeal No. 2853 of 2011(O&M) 4 Gurdaspur and the defendant was in possession of the same. The appellant/defendant was called upon to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the suit property to plaintiff/respondent No.1 after demolishing super structure. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant has filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 9.8.2010, held that the suit land belongs to the Municipal Council, Gurdaspur and the appellant/defendant is encroacher upon the same. The lower Appellate Court has further held that an encroacher of the land, which vests and belongs to Municipal Council, cannot claim adverse possession. Thus, the appeal, filed by the present appellant/defendant was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to dislodge the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Regarding the entries made in the revenue record, it has been stated by her that wrong entries have been made in the revenue record, therefore, the Municipal Council, Gurdaspur, cannot be held as owner of the property in dispute. At the same time, it has been urged that the appellant has become owner of the property in dispute by way of adverse possession. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the appellant intended this Court to re-appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence. I have perused the findings returned by both the Courts below and heard learned counsel for the appellant. She has failed to persuade me to formulate a view contrary than the concurrent finding of fact returned by both the Courts below. No question of law, much less a substantial one, has been raised before me which could warrant interference of this Court. Regular Second Appeal No. 2853 of 2011(O&M) 5 Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 15, 2011 “DK”