Regular Second Appeal No.1292 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1292 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:-13.9.2011 Mukesh and others ...Appellants Versus Gram Panchayat Ulawas ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, is that Rama Nand adopted son of Shadi Ram (since deceased), now being represented by his son/LR Mukesh, Raghuraj son of Todar Mal and others-appellant-plaintiffs (for brevity “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that the land in dispute is a gairmumkin pond (Johar), with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the Gram Panchayat, Ulawas-respondent-defendant (for short “the defendant-GP”) from changing its nature or raising any sort of construction, meant for sheds of cremation ground (Shamshan Bhoomi) on it. 2. The defendant-GP contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter-alia pleading that it (GP) is owner of the suit land, which was reserved for cremation ground at the request of villagers. The State of Haryana has also granted grant-in-aid for the maintenance of the area as a cremation ground. The plaintiffs have got no right, title or interest in the land in question. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendant-GP has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Regular Second Appeal No.1292 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 3. Controverting the allegations of the written statement and reiterating the pleadings contained in the plaint, the plaintiffs filed the replication. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the essential issues for proper adjudication of the case. 4. The parties to the lis, produced on record the oral as well as documentary evidence, in order to substantiate their respective pleaded stands. 5. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 30.7.2009. 6. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist Appellate Court, through the medium of impugned judgment and decree dated 27.10.2009. 7. The appellant-plaintiffs still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and the decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this context. 9. Ex-facie the argument of learned counsel that since the land in dispute was a pond, so, the defendant-GP has no right to change its nature as cremation ground, sans merits. 10. As is evident from the record that the GP is the owner and in possession of the portion in litigation. It is not a matter of dispute that the earlier civil suit, in regard to the property in dispute, was filed by some other inhabitants of the village in the year 1997 and sought a decree for declaration to the effect that the suit land was being used as a cremation ground, the GP be restrained from changing its use and claimed correction of the entries in the revenue record as cremation ground. The GP has admitted the claim of plaintiffs therein that the land Regular Second Appeal No.1292 of 2010 (O&M) -3- in dispute was being used as a cremation ground. Not only that, in the revenue record also, the disputed land was recorded as cremation ground, but later on, it was illegally changed and was recorded as Gairmumkin Ghat. The first suit was decreed on 28.1.1999 for declaration to the effect that the entry in the revenue record, wherein, the suit land was described as Gairmumkin Ghat, in place of cremation ground, was incorrect and GP was restrained from changing the nature and using it for any purpose than cremation ground. At the same time, the direction was issued to the revenue authorities to record the land in dispute as cremation ground (Shamshan Bhoomi) in the revenue record. Thus, the earlier judgment is very much relevant in order to decide the real controversy between the parties in the present suit. 11. In this manner, once it is proved on record that the land in dispute is cremation ground and is so recorded in the revenue record, then the plaintiffs have got no right, title or interest to stop the GP from constructing the sheds meant for cremation ground in the wake of Govt. Grant. Moreover, Rule 3 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1964 also authorizes the GP to use any part of shamlat deh for any purpose mentioned therein and one of said purpose is cremation or burial ground. 12. Meaning thereby, to me, the Courts below, after taking into consideration the entire material on record, have rightly negatived the claim of the plaintiffs and recorded the valid reasons in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, they have recorded the concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs have got no right, title or interest in the suit land. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs, so as to take a Regular Second Appeal No.1292 of 2010 (O&M) -4- contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this respect. 13. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants to assail the findings of the Courts below in this regard. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on their behalf, in this relevant direction, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 14. Sequelly, the entire matter revolves around the re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned judgments/decrees of the Courts below, in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 15. No other meaningful point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs. 16. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 13.9.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No