RSA No. 1857 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1857 of 1987 Date of decision: 7.11.2011 Gurmel Singh, Sarpanch and another ........ Appellants Versus Gurmail Singh ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. HS Grewal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the respondent. JORA SINGH, J. Gurmel Singh, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat village Ranipur Rajpootan, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala, preferred this Regular Second Appeal to challenge the concurrent findings of the Courts' below. Main suit No. 253/24.12.1985, for permanent injunction was instituted by Gurmail Singh-respondent on the allegation that he is in possession of the property in dispute bearing khasra Nos. 107/2-8 and 108/2-0 of khata No. 458/650 of jamabandi for the years 1981-82 of village Ranipur Rajpootan and with the above said khasra numbers RSA No. 1857 of 1987 -2- defendants i.e. appellants in the present appeal have no concern but they threatened to interfere and take possession forcibly with a view to construct a janj ghar/latrines. Case of the appellants was that property in dispute was left by Gram Panchayat for the construction of latrines for the general public of the village. At present, general public of the village tether their cattle and store cow-dung cakes with the consent of the Gram Panchayat. Land of the respondent/plaintiff adjoins the disputed property. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: “1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 2. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his acts and conduct? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP 5. Relief.” After evidence led by both the parties, main suit for permanent injunction was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 9.9.1986 and in the appeal finding of the trial Court was upheld by the Ist Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 21.2.1987. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. There are concurrent findings of facts of both the Courts' below in favour of the RSA No. 1857 of 1987 -3- respondent. In fact the Gram Panchayat intends to construct Janj Ghar and latrines in the disputed khasra numbers for the welfare of general public of the village. Land of the respondent adjoins the disputed khasra numbers. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that evidence on file was rightly appreciated by both the Courts' below. Evidence was not misread. Both the Courts' below observed that respondents are in possession of the property in dispute. Admittedly, main suit for permanent injunction was instituted by the respondent. Respondent-plaintiff examined Harjinder Singh-(PW-2) as his attorney and he stated that Gurmail Singh is in possession of the property in dispute bearing khasra Nos. 107/2-8 and 108/2-0 of khata No. 458/650 of jamabandi for the years 1981-82. Suggestion was given to the attorney of the respondent-plaintiff that Gram Panchayat has reserved the disputed property to construct latrines and Janj Ghar for the welfare of the general public. Second suggestion was given to the witness that entries of the revenue record in favour of Gurmail Singh are not correct one. In fact the entries of the revenue record pertains to another Gurmail Singh Gill, whose property adjoins the property in dispute. Appellant-Gram Panchayat examined Gurmel Singh, Sarpanch as DW-1 and in examination-in-chief he stated that Gram Panchayat is in possession of the property in dispute. Bricks were purchased by the Gram Panchayat to construct Janj Ghar/latrines. Entries of the revenue record in the name of Gurmail Singh and Nirmal Singh are not correct one. RSA No. 1857 of 1987 -4- In cross-examination he admitted that payment was collected from the villagers for the purchase of bricks and payment collected was handed over to Surjit Singh, President, Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee. Bricks were purchased but regarding purchase of bricks resolution was not passed. DW-2 Surjit Singh, President, Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, in examination-in-chief stated that respondent is not in possession of the property in dispute. Record is being maintained by Gururdwara Prabandhak Committee village Ranipur Rajpootan. Bricks were purchased for construction purposes. Gram Panchayat came to know about the wrong entries in the revenue record in the year 1981. Ex. D-1 is the resolution passed by the Panchayat that khasra Nos. 107/2-8 were reserved for the construction of janj ghar and latrines. Second resolution copy of which is Ex. D-2 passed to the effect that property in dispute was in possession of Gram Panchayat but Gurmail Singh and Nirmal Singh, are threatening to take possession forcibly. Gurmel Singh, Sarpanch was authorized to pursue the litigation on behalf of Gram Panchayat. Ex. D-5 to Ex. D-8 are the copies of different jamabandies but as per column Nos. 4 and 5 of the jamabandies disputed khasra numbers are abadi deh. Ex. D-4 is the copy of khasra girdawari. Ex. P-1 is the copy of jamabandi for the years 1981-82 and as per this jamabandi respondent-plaintiff is owner in possession of the disputed property. Nirmal Singh S/o Didar Singh, appeared as DW-3 and stated that Gram Panchayat along with other members of the village had approached them and asked about the khasra girdawari and they told them that they RSA No. 1857 of 1987 -5- have no objection if the Gram Panchayat and other community of village construct latrines/janj ghar on this suit property. He further stated that no one was in possession of the suit property and only the bricks were stored. In cross-examination he stated that they purchased the adjoining land about 10-12 years and they never cultivated the suit land. He along with his father was present when local commissioner had inspected the property in dispute. If Nirmal Singh and his brother Gurmail Singh-respondent were not in possession of the property in dispute as per revenue record and they never cultivated the disputed property then entries of the revenue record in their names for the years 1978-79 onwards are not correct one. No jamabandi or khasra girdawari on the file to show that appellants/Gram Panchayat is the owner in possession of the land in dispute. Local Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court and report of the local commissioner is dated 2.1.1986. As per report there was no construction on the site but only some bricks were found lying. Fodder cutting machine with some cattle was noticed by the local commissioner. Resolution was passed by the Panchayat for construction of Janj Ghar/latrines. Committee was formed. As per revenue record property in dispute is abadi deh. No record on the file from the side of the appellants to show that bricks were purchased by the Panchayat for construction purposes. Suppose bricks were purchased by the Panchayat then question is whether Panchayat is in possession of the disputed property. As per revenue record disputed property is in possession of the plaintiff-respondent. In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that RSA No. 1857 of 1987 -6- evidence on file was rightly appreciated by both the Courts' below. No reason to differ. Dispute is regarding possession only. No substantial question of law is involved. For the reasons recorded above, instant appeal is dismissed. November 7, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE