R.S.A.No.934 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.934 of 2008 Date of Decision : 15.7.2009 Mohar Singh ...Appellant Versus The Gram Panchayat of Village Kapriwas & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. L.N.Verma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. J.V.Yadav, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, whereby injunction sought to be claimed in respect of khasra No.111 and khasra No.56, situated in Village Kapriwas, District Rewari, was dismissed. The plaintiff claims to be owner and in possession of khasra No.72. The said land was allegedly used for keeping wood, bithora etc. and for manufacturing the poteries. It was alleged that the defendants are bent upon to construct drain in the said khasra number without any right, title and interest. In reply, it was pointed out that khasra No.72 vest in Gram Panchayat. On the other side of khasra No.72, there exists khasra No.56 which is gair mumkin and vests in Panchayat. The site plan produced by the plaintiff is said to be wrong and illegal. Possession of the plaintiff over khasra No.56 was denied or that khasra No.56 is being used by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court returned a finding that khasra No.111 or khasra No.56 are neither owned by the plaintiff nor he was in possession thereof. Such finding was returned on the basis of the site plan (Ex.PW-1/A) R.S.A.No.934 of 2008 2 co-related with aks-chajra. It was also found that bithora and turi alleged to be stacked by the plaintiff over khasra No.56, will not establish the possession of the plaintiff. As temporary use of vacant land in front of the house of the plaintiff, will not be an evidence of possession. Learned trial Court, however, ordered that the defendants can take possession of khasra No.56 from the plaintiff in due course of law. The appeal against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that khasra No.111 was not the subject matter of controversy in the present suit, therefore, any finding recorded thereon is not sustainable. The appellant also denied the location of khasra No.56 on the southern side of khasra No.72, which is said to be in possession of the plaintiff. It is alleged that khasra No.56 is also in possession of the plaintiff and, thus, the respondents cannot take possession of khasra No.72 or khasra No.56 except in due course of law. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The revenue record produced by the plaintiff reflects his possession over khasra No.72 on a area measuring 12 marlas. There is no revenue record, which records possession of the plaintiff over khasra No.56. The only evidence of the plaintiff in support of his possession over khasra No.56 is the stacking of bithoras and turi on the aforesaid land. Such temporary use of a vacant plot will not confer legal possession of the aforesaid land on the plaintiff. It is also on record that in khasra No.56 and khasra No.111 owned by the Gram Panchayat, pipes are being laid for the drainage of the village, which is in the interest of public. The defendants have been restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from khasra No.72 except in due process of law. In view of the said fact, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Courts below are suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity. The R.S.A.No.934 of 2008 3 findings recorded by the Courts below, do not give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 15.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE