RSA No. 4259 of 2010 - 1- `IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 4259 of 2010 Date of Decision: 02.5.2011. Gram Panchayat .......Appellant Vs. Kanwar Lal and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was owner in possession of the suit land since time immemorial and had constructed two rooms over the suit property about 30 years ago. Plaintiff was using the same for domestic purposes. Defendants were threatening to demolish the rooms, constructed by the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that a community center had been constructed over the suit property after getting the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee. After the abolition of the Municipal Committee, all rights qua the same, vested in the Gram Panchayat. Plaintiff RSA No. 4259 of 2010 - 2- was in illegal and unauthorised possession of the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction sought? OPP 2. Relief.” Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 9.3.2010, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 7.5.2010. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and the defendants were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property except in due course of law. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant No.1. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. The case of the appellant-Gram Panchayat was that the possession of the plaintiff qua the suit property was illegal and unauthorised. The defendants could always take recourse to law to get back the possession of the suit property. It has transpired during the course of arguments that the appellant has already filed a suit for possession. Thus, the appellant has already taken recourse to law to seek possession of the suit land from the plaintiff. Vide the impugned decree, the appellant was only restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property except in due course of law. The RSA No. 4259 of 2010 - 3- apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned decree would stand in the way of the appellant in the suit filed by Gram Panchayat, is without any basis. Vide the impugned decree, the defendants were only restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property except in due course of law and now the appellant has taken recourse to law to get the possession of the suit property. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 02, 2011 Gurpreet