IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2737 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 4th July, 2011 Forest Department through DFO, Garhshankar … Appellant Versus Surjit Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. N.S. Virk, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants-State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Civil Misc. No.7390-C of 2011 This is an application for condonation of delay of 188 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated therein, the delay is condoned and the application is disposed of. Regular Second Appeal No.2737 of 2011 This is defendant-Forest Department’s regular second appeal. Surjit Singh respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit against appellant-defendant and four other respondents for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in future in his continuous, peaceful and lawful possession over the suit land measuring 40 kanals 16 marlas, the details and description whereof was given in the plaint. It was further averred that the appellants-defendants were interfering with the possession of the respondent-plaintiff and they intended to dispossess him therefrom forcibly. According to the respondent-plaintiff Regular Second Appeal No.2737 of 2011 (O&M) the land vested in the Provincial Government and from the very inception it was in his possession. He had improved the land by spending a huge amount and had dug four bores and planted poplar trees. Taking benefit of wrong entries made in the revenue record, the appellant-defendants were taking active steps to dispossess the respondent-plaintiff. Defendants No.1 to 4 upon notice, caused appearance and contested the suit. A joint written statement was filed by official defendants No.1 to 3 and a separate written statement by defendant No.4. Defendant No.5-Gurmail Singh did not contest the same, despite service. In the written statement preliminary objections were raised to the maintainability of the suit; cause of action and right of the plaintiff to sue the defendants; barred by his own conduct; admission and acquiescence to file the suit; and he had not served the requisite notice under Section 80 CPC. Even locus standi of the respondent-plaintiff was also disputed. Present appellant-defendant No.4 to the suit also took a similar stand and further pleaded that the respondent-plaintiff was a trespasser over the protected forest land and he intended to usurp the Government land. He has no right or title to claim the adverse possession over the land. The trial Court, after conclusion of the pleadings, had drawn the following issues: “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether suit is not maintainable in present form? OPD 3. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action and right to sue against defendants No.1 to 3? OPD 1-3 2 Regular Second Appeal No.2737 of 2011 (O&M) 4. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing present suit by his own acts, conduct, admission and acquiescence? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file present suit? OPD 6. Whether defendants No.1 to 3/Provincial Government is owner in possession of suit land? OPD 1-3. 7. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD-4. 8. Whether suit of plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD-4. 9. Relief.” Respondent-plaintiff-Surjit Singh led his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his claim. Appellant-defendant No.4 only contested the suit and led his evidence, whereas defendants No.1 to 3 having absented from the proceedings were proceeded against ex- parte. After the parties had led their oral as well as documentary evidence, the trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and returned its finding of fact that possession of the plaintiff has been proved over the property in dispute. Ownership rests with the appellant- defendant. There is no dispute about it. It has been dealt with in Issue No.6. Ultimately, it decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff with costs. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has instituted an appeal. The lower appellate Court after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record and dealing with the case law cited by both the parties, concurred with the findings returned by the trial Court. The concluding para No.14 reads, thus: 3 Regular Second Appeal No.2737 of 2011 (O&M) “14. Even on merits, the possession of the plaintiff stands proved on the record. Even some rent has been paid by the plaintiff to the Government in form 32-A from the year 1987-1988 to 1994-1995 have been placed on the record. Therefore, in case the plaintiff is in long settled possession, then he cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law. It has been alleged that the findings on issue No.1 are correct. In case it is held that it is in relief clause, it is immaterial because specific findings have been given against issue No.1.” The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal with costs. Mr. N.S. Virk, Additional Advocate General, Punjab has stated that the respondent-plaintiff was an illegal and unauthorized occupant and has not paid rent to the actual owner i.e. Punjab Forest Department. On an observation made by this Court that by raising this plea the possession of the respondent-plaintiff stands admitted, learned counsel has referred to ground No.3 of memo of appeal to fortify his submission. However, counsel for the appellant-State has failed to bring into the notice of this Court any document or part of the evidence from which it can be inferred otherwise. No substantial question of law, which merits attention of this Court, has been formulated. Thus, this Court will refrain from interfering with the concurrent findings of fact returned by both the Courts below. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 4, 2011 rps 4