IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4253 of 2009 Date of Decision : November 20, 2009 Ram Kishan and others ....Appellants Versus Gram Panchayat village Rampura and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. After failing in their attempt before learned Courts below in their suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiffs are now before this Court by way of second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the plaintiffs, they alongwith others were owners in possession of the property comprised in Ahata/Ghar No.98, 99, 100, 101 and 103 to 108. There was a path in Ahata No.84 measuring 3 Ghata in width, i.e. approximately 25 feet in village Rampura as per Khasra Paimaish for the year 1866 and Aks Shijra. They also constructed their pucca houses as mentioned in the site plan. However, on 2.10.2000, defendant-Gram Panchayat demolished their boundary wall, toilets, etc. illegal, arbitrarily, without any just and reasonable cause, without any demarcation and without considering the R.S.A. No. 4253 of 2009 - 2 - documents submitted by the plaintiffs. The defendant Gram Panchayat then issued notice under Section 24(1) of the Panchayati Raj Act (for short 'the Act'). The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Director, Panchayats, Haryana, who was pleased to remand the case with the directions to the defendant-Gram Panchayat to offer an opportunity of hearing again and after ascertaining the old revenue record, the Gram Panchayat was directed to pass a fresh order for the removal of any encroachment, if found on rasta-sare-aam. In compliance of the said order, the plaintiffs appeared before the Gram Panchayat and submitted demarcation report of the Local Commissioner and also filed other relevant documents. Despite that the Gram Panchayat did not comply with the directions. The plaintiffs then filed CWP No. 13276 of 2001 but the same was dismissed on 31.8.2001 on the ground that the matter was already pending before the Gram Panchayat. The Sarpanch, being inimical towards the plaintiffs, demolished the Chabutra situated over the suit property. Accordingly, the plaintiffs prayed for permanent injunction so as to restrain defendant-Gram Panchayat from constructing any drain in the property of the plaintiffs and also for restoration of the suit property. The Gram Panchayat, while opposing the suit, mentioned in its written statement that the plaintiffs were not owners of Ahata/Ghar as mentioned in the plaint. In fact, the plaintiffs had encroached upon khasra numbes 84 and 98 which were owned by the Gram Panchayat. R.S.A. No. 4253 of 2009 - 3 - After serving notice upon the plaintiffs as required by Section 24(1) of the Act, the illegal encroachment was removed. Necessary demarcation was also conducted. Pursuant to order of the Director, Panchayats, Naib Tehsildar, Rewari submitted his report dated 1.2.2001, wherein it was mentioned that the Chabutra was constructed by encroachment over Khasra No.98. The plaintiffs did not appear before the Gram Panchayat. Hence, it prayed for dismissal of the suit. Both the Courts below held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were owners in possession of the suit property. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved of the notice issued by Gram Panchayat under Section 24(1) of the Act, the plaintiffs-appellants moved the Director, Panchayats, who remanded the matter to the Gram Panchayat to pass a fresh order for the removal of any encroachment after ascertaining the old revenue record. Thereafter, fresh demarcation was carried out under the orders of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rewari and the plaintiffs were found to have encroached upon the portion of the passage. Consequently, the encroached portion was demolished. On the other hand, the plaintiffs relied upon the report of retired Girdawar but the same was rightly left out of consideration by the learned Courts below on the ground that no notice was given to the Gram Panchayat, Rampura by the retired Girdawar nor he visited the spot in compliance of the orders of the Director, Panchayats. Therefore, there was no evidence to R.S.A. No. 4253 of 2009 - 4 - prove that the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the area from where the encroachment was removed. Admittedly, before filing of the suit, the encroachment had already been removed. This is also clear from the photographs Exs.P1 to P6 placed on the record by the plaintiffs. Once the encroachment had been removed, the Gram Panchayat had every right to construct drain on the suit property. No injunction could be granted against the Panchayat against its proposed step of construction of drain, which was for the development of the area and welfare of the villagers. No case is made out for interference in the impugned judgments as the findings arrived at therein were based upon correct appreciation of the material evidence on the record. These findings are neither perverse nor do they suffer from any illegality or infirmity. None of the substantial questions of law, as framed by learned counsel for the appellants, arises for determination. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. ( T.P.S. MANN ) November 20, 2009 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO