Civil Revioson No. 6116 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGRH Civil Revioson No. 6116 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.11.2009 Tara Chand and another Vs. Haryana State through Collector Hisar & Ors CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Sandeep Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners Shri Lokesh Sinhal, Addl.A.G. Haryana for respondent No.1 Shri Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Shri Pankaj Maini, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 to 11 HEMANT GUPTA,J.(oral) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 19.8.2008 and order in appeal passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 16.10.2008 whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. The plaintiffs claims to have purchased property comprising in khasra No. 118//29/6/4/2 measuring 20'X59' situated in revenue estate of Civil Revioson No. 6116 of 2008 2 Hisar-III from one Smt. Kamla Devi by way of sale deed dated 23.1.2006. The plaintiffs earlier claimed ownership on the basis of the writing executed by Smt. Kamla Devi dated 15.11.1981. The plaintiffs alleged to have raised construction after the aforesaid writing. The plaintiffs have sought injunction against dispossession and removal of construction. Both the courts have dismissed the application of the plaintiffs inter alia on the ground that the plaintiffs have encroached upon the public street and no injunction can be granted to a person who has encroached upon the rights of others. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Smt. Kamla Devi is the owner of the suit property which is evident from the jamabandi of the year 1998-99. The plaintiff is thus in possession of the suit property on the basis of the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs by the owner. A perusal of the jambandi of the year 1998-99 shows that the owner is “Patti Shamlat”. The said property vests in Panchayat in terms of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Commmon Lands(Regulation) Act, 1961. Though Kamla Devi is recorded as the person in possession but such possession is not that of owner as it is infact the Panchayat which is owner of the suit property. Both the courts have found that the plaintiffs have encroached upon a portion of the street. The learned First Appellate Court has found that there is one sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs on 27.10.89. The site plan attached with the said sale deed reflects that the property in dispute is street. It was thus held that the assertion of the plaintiff that Civil Revioson No. 6116 of 2008 3 Kamla Devi was owner of the suit property is in fact against the documents produced by the plaintiff. In view of the above, I do not find any parent illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned Courts below which may warrant interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE November 10, 2009 RSK