Regular Second Appeal No. 4002 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 4002 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.7.2011 Gam Panchayat, Gudhan …Appellant Versus Municipal Committee, Kalanaur and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Pardeep P. Chahar, Advocate for the appellant. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Civil Misc. No. 11897-C of 2010 The present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 479 days in re-filing of the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 479 days in re-filing of the appeal is condoned. Regular Second Appeal No.4002 of 2010 Gram Panchayat Gudhan, having failed in two rounds of litigation, has approached this Court by instituting the present regular second appeal. A few facts are not disputed that at one point of time Gram Panchayats of villages Kalanaur Kalan, Kalanaur Khurd and plaintiff Gram Panchayat Gudhan had a common land. It has also been admitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that lateron Gram Panchayat Regular Second Appeal No. 4002 of 2010 (O&M) 2 of villages Kalanaur Khurd and Kalanaur Kalan was notified as Municipal Committee, Kalanaur. Appellant/plaintiff Gram Panchayat Gudhan, Tehsil and District, Rohtak, filed a suit for declaration seeking permanent injunction by stating that they are in exclusive possession of 372 kanals and 10 marlas of land. It was pleaded in the suit that Collector, Rohtak, had issued a direction for partition of land especially between the Municipal Committee, Kalanaur, village Jindran and appellant/plaintiff Gram Panchayat. It was further pleaded that appellant/plaintiff Gram Panchayat had become owner of 372 kanals and 10 marlas of land after the same was partitioned. The suit filed by appellant/plaintiff Gam Panchayat was contested by the Municipal Committee, Kalanaur, Tehsil and District Rohtak, by filing a written statement. A preliminary objection was raised that the appellant/plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit land. This dispute is still pending before the Collector and Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Rohtak. It was further stated that in the notification, no shamlat land was given to the appellant/plaintiff Gram Panchayat. After conclusion of the pleadings, a specific issue No.1 was framed as to whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the disputed land. The trial Court, after examining the entire evidence, vide its judgment dated 2.5.2005, held that the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove that they were in possession of the suit land. Thus, issue No.1 was decided against the appellant/plaintiff Gram Panchayat and in favour of the defendants. There is no need to notice issues No.2 to 4 as the onus to prove the same was upon the defendants and the same were decided against the defendants as not pressed. Thus, on the basis of issue No.1, Regular Second Appeal No. 4002 of 2010 (O&M) 3 appellant/plaintiff Gram Panchayat was non suited. The findings given by the trial Court have been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court, vide its judgment & decree dated 27.8.2008. I have heard Mr. Pardeep P. Chahar, Advocate, appearing for the appellant/plaintiff. He has based the entire claim of the appellant/plaintiff on the document which were letters Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Qua these letters, the trial Court has stated that these are correspondence between various functionaries of the Government regarding the land in dispute. However, it nowhere shows that the land was allotted or possessed or given to the appellant/plaintiff Gram Panchayat. The trial Court further held that a perusal of notification Annexure P6 reveals that there was a separation of village Gudhan from villages Kalanaur Khurd and Kalanaur Kalan and the same was given Hadbast No. 134 but the said notification nowhere shows that the suit land was given to plaintiff-Gram Panchayat. The lower Appellate Court, in specific words, has stated as under:- “14...Document Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 which is a piece of correspondence between the government department and plaintiff cannot become the basis to draw the conclusion that plaintiff Gram Panchayat was owner in possession of the suit land...” Mr. Pardeep P. Chahar, Advocate, is unable to show any other document except Annexures P1 and P2 wherefrom the claim raised in the litigation can be found justifiable. Both the Courts below considered documents Annexures P1 and P2 and held that from the same possession and ownership of the appellant/plaintiff Gram Panchayat Regular Second Appeal No. 4002 of 2010 (O&M) 4 cannot be inferred. Both the Courts below further held that from a perusal of documents Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, Ex.D4, Ex.D5 and Ex.7 it is apparent that the appellant/plaintiff was not owner in possession of the suit land. Thus, both the Courts below have rightly held that no document has been proved by the appellant/plaintiff wherefrom the suit could be decreed. There is no infirmity in the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below. No question of law, much less a substantial one, has been raised before me which could warrant interference of this Court. Thus, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 19, 2011 “DK”