R.S.A. No. 4993 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4993 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.2.2011 Gurjant Singh ......Appellant Versus Baldev Singh and another .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Daman Jeet, Advocate for Mr. Suikhjit Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that they were co-sharers of land measuring 257 kanals 9 marlas in khewat No.120, situated within revenue limit of village Burj Mehma. The defendants had illegally encroached upon part of the land belonging to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs got the land demarcated and the concerned kanungo after conducting demarcation found that the defendants were in illegal possession of land measuring 55 kanals, 14 marlas. Defendants, on the other hand, in their written statement denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the demarcation carried out R.S.A. No. 4993 of 2009 (O&M) 2 by the kanungo was illegal as defendants had not been given notice before conducting the demarcation proceedings. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of the land, as detailed in the head note of the plaint ? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi ? OPD. 4. Relief.” The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.1.2009 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the District Judge, Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 5.6.209 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for possession. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were owner of the land in question bearing khasra Nos.1363, 1365, 1369, 1370. The defendants had encroached upon the land belonging to the plaintiffs. In support of their plea plaintiffs proved on record demarcation report Ex.P-1, which was prepared by P.W.2 Gurdas Singh. The said report is dated 27.5.1999 accompanied by site plan Ex.P-2. The said report cannot be discarded merely because in the plaint the date of the demarcation report has been mentioned as 27.5.1997. R.S.A. No. 4993 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Apparently, due to inadvertence/clerical error the date of the report might have been incorrectly typed in the plaint. The demarcation report has been duly proved by P.W.2, who had conducted the demarcation proceedings. A perusal of the report Ex.P-1 (shown during the course of argument) reveals that notice was issued to the concerned parties through the Patwari. Baldev Singh, plaintiff, had participated in the demarcation proceedings. As per the demarcation report, the defendants had encroached upon khasra Nos. 1363,1365,1369,1370 on the northern side. The defendants, on the other hand, had failed to rebut the said evidence. In these circumstances, the learned District Judge has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 1, 2011 Anand