R.S.A. No. 924 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 924 of 2009 Date of decision: 19-5-2009 Dharam Singh … Appellant versus The District Development & Panchayat Officer, Tehsil Complex, Jalandhar & others … Respondents CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Harmohinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: This is plaintiff’s second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants, their agents, attorney/servants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from taking forcible illegal possession from the plaintiff of the land as per details given in the plaint, and further for directing the defendants to install tubewell connection for irrigating the suit land, has been dismissed. Plaintiff in his suit pleaded that the suit land is ownership of village Gram Panchayat of village Kukkar Pind. The said land was on lease/rent with one Gurcharan Singh son of Sukhdev Singh but the same was being cultivated by the plaintiff, being on Theka with him which he was paying to the concerned Authorities, i.e. Gram Panchayat Kukkar Pind. According to the plaintiff, at the time of taking the said land on Theka, there was no proper arrangement for irrigation of the land but he managed to irrigate the land and was hoping that the defendants would install tubewell connection but nothing was done, due to which the plaintiff had to suffer damage of his crop to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The plaintiff then R.S.A. No. 924 of 2009 2 moved an application dated 29.5.2001 to the B.D.O. but nothing was done despite assurances made. Plaintiff alleged that the revenue record was also not corrected in his name; rather the defendants are threatening to take forcible possession of the land. Hence, the suit. Upon notice of the suit to the defendants, defendants 1 and 2 initially though appeared but later on did not do so and hence, were proceeded against ex parte and only defendant No.3 contested the suit. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is barred by his act and conduct from filing the present suit and that the plaint deserves rejection due to non-compliance of the provisions of Order 7 rule 1( j ) Code of Civil Procedure. Further, plea was taken that the suit of the plaintiff has since become infructuous as the plaintiff is not at all in possession of the suit land; rather the same is owned by defendant No.3. It was pleaded that the plaintiff got the suit land on lease for a specific period but refused to surrender its possession after lapse of lease period and as such, he became unauthorized occupant since 15.9.2002. It was also stated that DDPO-cum-Collector, Jalandhar, vide his order dated 11.2.2002 held that the plaintiff was in unauthorized possession and therefore, ordered his ejectment besides levying Rs.`3,30,000/- as lease money. Against the said order, plaintiff preferred an appeal which however was dismissed by the Joint Development Commissioner. It was further stated that now the land had again been leased out to some other persons, after taking possession of the land with the help of police. Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide its judgment and decree dated 24.10.2007 found that the plaintiff already stood ejected from the suit land and since he was no more in possession of the suit land, the suit filed by him has been rendered infructuous and therefore, dismissed the same accordingly. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff filed an appeal which was dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.9.2008. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff. Both the Courts below while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff have concurrently held that the plaintiff has not been able to prove that he has any interest in the suit land or he has a legal possession thereof; which apparently is owned by defendant No.3-Gram Panchayat. It has been found that the suit land in fact had been leased out to the plaintiff for specific period and on expiry of said period, since the plaintiff failed to deliver its R.S.A. No. 924 of 2009 3 possession the defendant-department had to initiate against him proceedings under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands(Regulation) Act which led to the passing of an ejectment order against him. Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the said ejectment order was also dismissed and ultimately, possession of the suit land was taken from the plaintiff with police help in due course of law. The plea of the plaintiff that he had got installed a tubewell connection and had also suffered loss, did not find favour with the Courts below and it was held that the plaintiff had no right to retain the land after the expiry of lease period. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) May 19, 2009 JUDGE JS