IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2278 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 30th October, 2008 Naresh Kumar and another … Appellants Versus Zile Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate for the appellants. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. This is plaintiff’s second appeal. A suit was instituted by the plaintiff for permanent injunction with a prayer that defendants be restrained from constructing a new Khal (watercourse) in the land Khasra Numbers of which have been described in the plaint. Suit preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, an appeal was preferred. Plaintiff also failed before the lower appellate Court. Hence, present regular second appeal has been filed. It was stated in the plaint that plaintiffs were owners in possession of 124 kanal 9 marla of land, as per the revenue record in the revenue estate of village Tosham. The land was being irrigated from a water outlet No.43735-L Bhurtana Minir. It was stated that even though there is a watercourse in existence, defendants being influential, forcibly and illegally intend to construct new watercourse through the land owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. They had paid no heed to the request of the plaintiffs and did not desist from their desire to construct new watercourse. Regular Second Appeal No.2278 of 2008 (O&M) Notice of the suit was give. Defendants appeared. It was stated that a Khal has been constructed by the plaintiff, which has not been approved by the authorities. The defendants have pleaded that they want to construct the Khal comprising in Khasra No.418 into running condition but plaintiffs are creating hindrance. The Khal comprised in Khasra No.418 is the ownership of Gram Panchayat. Replication was filed. It was denied therein that Khasra No.418 has been divided into three parts as alleged by the defendants. Trial Court had framed issues and meticulously examined the evidence led by the parties. Trial Court held as under: “The field-book of Khasra No.418 prepared along with the mutation Ex.D8 also proves this fact that Khasra No.418 which is Gairmumkin Khal stands bifurcated into 3 Khasra numbers, i.e. 418/1 (0-9), 418/2 (0-30 and 418/3 (3-8). No person has a right to change the nature or use of the Khasra No.418 which has been provided during the consolidation proceedings. The revenue record placed on file by the defendants has been prepared by a revenue officer in the ordinary course of its duty. The plaintiffs have not been able to show that khasra No.418 which was provided through the land owned by them has ever been cancelled by competent authority.” After going through the revenue record and testimony of witnesses, trial Court rightly held that relief of injunction cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved against the same, an appeal was filed. The Court held that since the plaintiffs are not owners of the area left for the purpose of Khal on Khasra No. 418, so the plaintiffs cannot restrain other party from getting operated the Khal, when the same leads to the land of the defendants. It further held that Canal authorities are the appropriate authority to make the watercourse running and it dismissed the appeal. Two courts below have examined the evidence. 2 Regular Second Appeal No.2278 of 2008 (O&M) I have heard Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar counsel for the appellants. He canvassed before me that defendants ought to have been restrained as they could not forcibly construct the watercourse. On observations made by this Court that it has been held by two courts below that Khasra No. 418 in consolidation proceedings, land has been kept for watercourse, counsel has failed to show from any piece of evidence that the portion from where Khal is to be constructed is in possession of the appellant plaintiffs. On facts, concurrent finding of two courts below is against the appellant plaintiff. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises. Hence, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the appellants and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 30, 2008 rps 3