R.S.A.No. 3857 of 2006 of (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3857 of 2006 of (O&M) Date of decision: 1.4.2011. Ramesh Lal ......Appellant Versus Bikram Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sandeep Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. None for respondents **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession of the suit land after removal of unauthorised construction. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that they were joint owners in possession of the suit land measuring 17 kanals 4 marlas as described in the head note of the plaint. Defendants No.1, 2 and 4 had forcibly encroached upon part of the suit land measuring 2 kanals 19 marlas about ten months back. The plaintiffs were in possession of the remaining 14 kanals 5 marlas of land. R.S.A.No. 3857 of 2006 of (O&M) 2 Defendants No.1 to 10, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the defendants were in possession of the land belonging to them and in case it was found that the land in possession of the defendants was part of khasra No.278 then the defendants had become owner of the said land by way of adverse possession. Defendant No.11, in his written statement, denied the contents of the plaint. It was averred that defendants No.1 and 2 had taken forcible possession of South Eastern part of the suit land. The answering defendant had no concern with the encroachment made by defendants No.1 and 2. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession and permanent injunction as prayed for after demolition and removal of unauthorised construction as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is hopelessly time barred? OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdicrtion? OPD 6. Relief. R.S.A.No. 3857 of 2006 of (O&M) 3 Later on the following two additional issues were framed by the trial Court:- “2-A: Whether the report of the LC is liable to be set aside ? OPD 5-A: Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession? OPD The Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 19.1.2004. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants No.1 to 6 preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 1.6.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.2. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Both the Courts below, basing reliance on the report of the Local Commissioner Ex.P-2, have given a finding of fact that the defendants had encroached upon 3 kanals 4 marlas of land out of khasra No.278 belonging to the plaintiffs. The Local Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court vide order dated 11.1.2001 to visit the spot and demarcate the same and report as to whether there was any encroachment in khasra No.278 by the defendants. Hari Parkash, retired Kanungo, who was appointed as a Local Commissioner, had conducted the demarcation in the presence of the appellant as well as his counsel. The pucca points had been fixed as agreed by the parties. The Local Commissioner was called by the defendants for cross-examination but the report submitted by R.S.A.No. 3857 of 2006 of (O&M) 4 the Local Commissioner could not be shaken. The Courts below have rightly relied upon the report of the Local Commissioner Ex.P-2. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 01, 2011 anita