R. S. A. No. 1567 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1567 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 22, 2010 Deen Mohammad .... Appellant Vs. Gram Panchayat and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 4724-C of 2010 : For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 30 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal : Plaintiff Deen Mohammad has filed the instant second appeal having been non-suited by both the courts below. Deen Mohammad filed suit against Gram Panchayat of Village Jaisinghpur, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Nuh and State of Haryana alleging that the plaintiff is in possession of residential plot marked by letters ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint. There is khore (manger), khunta (peg), fuel wood and heap of stones etc. in the suit land. The plaintiff is in possession thereof for the last more than 30 years R. S. A. No. 1567 of 2010 (O&M) 2 continuously. There was damaged school building of Gram Panchayat – defendant no.1 in the suit plot. The plaintiff claimed that under Haryana Government policy dated 16.10.2000, the plaintiff is entitled to purchase the suit property. The plaintiff accordingly made request to defendant no.1, which passed resolution no.1 dated 28.12.2003, recommending the plaintiff's request to Tehsildar. Tehsildar obtained valuation report from Patwari, who assessed the cost of the plot @ Rs.200/- per square yard. The case was then sent by defendant no.2 to defendant no.3. However, the plaintiff's request has not yet been accepted. On the other hand, defendants no.1 and 2 started threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. The plaintiff, therefore, sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants to execute sale deed of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff in accordance with the policy dated 16.10.2000. Defendant no.1, in its written statement, virtually admitted the claim of the plaintiff and stated that defendant no.1 has no objection if the suit land is sold to the plaintiff. However, defendants no.2 and 3 controverted the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that plaintiff's possession over the suit land, if any, is unauthorized and action against him would be taken in accordance with law. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nuh, vide judgment and decree dated 20.05.2009, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Nuh, vide judgment and decree dated 09.12.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant is covered by State policy dated 16.10.2000 being in unauthorized possession of suit property and therefore, plaintiff is entitled R. S. A. No. 1567 of 2010 (O&M) 3 to purchase the suit property. The contention cannot be accepted. The policy states that if any person has raised unauthorized construction in non- agricultural land of Gram Panchayat, such land may, subject to other conditions, be sold to the trespasser. In the instant case, however, it is not even the plaintiff's own case that he has raised any construction in the suit property. On the other hand, the plaintiff's case is that there was earlier damaged building of primary school of Gram Panchayat, which is now in possession of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that unauthorized possession of the plaintiff over the said building amounts to unauthorized construction. The contention cannot be accepted. The plaintiff has not raised any construction, which may be said to be unauthorized construction. On the other hand, according to plaintiff's own case, the construction existing in the suit land was school building belonging to Gram Panchayat and so, the said construction cannot be said to be unauthorized construction. On the other hand, the policy applies to land, which has been unauthorizedly occupied by a person by raising construction thereon. In the instant case, the plaintiff has not raised any construction on the suit land and rather construction belonging to Gram Panchayat is already existing on the said land. In view thereof, it is manifest that the plaintiff is not covered by the said policy. Courts below have correctly interpreted the aforesaid condition of the Government policy. There is no infirmity in the concurrent finding of the courts below. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. April 22, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE