RSA No.3541 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3541 of 2008 Date of Decision:28.01.2009 Jeet Kaur ....appellant Versus Gram Panchayat .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta,Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby her suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing her from the land in dispute forcibly,illegally and otherwise than in due course of law, has been dismissed. In the plaint, the plaintiff-appellant alleged that previously her husband Jaggar Singh was in possession of the suit land and after his death since 31.01.2004, she is in possession. The defendant/respondent is threatening to interfere into her possession over the suit land which had necessitated the filing of the suit for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into her possession over the suit land except in due course of law. The suit was contested by the respondent-Gram Panchayat by filing written statement averring therein that the plaintiff-appellant was in unauthorized possession of the public property. The lease period had already expired and now the suit land was auctioned in favour of Bawa Singh and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to any permanent injunction against the true owner. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the suit. RSA No.3541 of 2008 2 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the oral as well as documentary evidence on the record, the Courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact that plaintiff-appellant had failed to prove her cultivating possession over the suit land. She also failed to prove that after the death of her husband Jaggar Singh who was shown to be in permissive possession of the suit land vide Ex.P-1 being lessee of the land in dispute on payment of Chakota, had ever taken the suit land on lease for cultivation from its owner Gram Panchayat. Further that she was not recorded in possession of the suit land in the revenue record. On the other hand, the Gram Panchayat proved on record that the suit land was owned by Gram Panchayat and was auctioned every year and for the current year it was auctioned in favour of Bawa Singh. On the basis of these findings, the courts below held that appellant having not succeeded in proving her cultivating possession over the suit land, is not entitled to any permanent injunction against the respondent Gram Panchayat who was the true owner of the land in dispute. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. In the present case, the appellant has not been able to prove her established possession over the suit land. Thus, she cannot claim injunction against the respondent-Gram Panchayat who is a true owner. It is settled law that a permanent injunction cannot be claimed against the true owner. Thus, the plaintiff who at the best can be an unauthorized occupier, cannot claim injunction against the Gram Panchayat who is the true owner. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 28.01.2009 neenu