RSA No. 577 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 577 of 2011 Date of decision: 13.7.2011 Raghbir Singh ...Appellant Versus Gram Panchayat Chhanni ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Paramjit Rajput, Advocate for the appellant *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which appeal filed by the present appellant against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by learned courts below. Respondent -Gram Panchayat Chhanni has filed this suit for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering in the possession of Gram Panchayat over the khasra numbers in dispute by taking the plea that earlier Dharmshala meant for Harijan community was constructed in the said land and that in the year 2001, Dharmshala was renovated/ reconstructed by spending funds provided by the Government and the present appellant intends to interfere in the RSA No. 577 of 2011 2 possession of Gram Panchayat over the land in dispute merely on the ground that his name has been entered in the Jamabandi in the column of ownership. Suit was contested by the present appellant -defendant on the plea that he is owner in possession of both the khasra numbers and that he has also raised construction over the same. It has been held by learned courts below that the appellant- defendant has himself admitted that Dharmshala and Panchayat Ghar are in existence on the land in dispute and the same are being managed by the Gram Panchayat. He has also admitted that the construction was raised by the Gram Panchayat by spending funds provided by the Government. He has also admitted that his own land is adjacent to the khasra numbers in dispute. He has taken the plea that he is in possession of the vacant land, as he had grown trees and also constructed one small room. However, he has deposed that he had given statement before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on the the application filed by the Gram Panchayat that he would never interfere in the possession of the Gram Panchayat. Property in dispute has been admitted by him to be Dharmshala being used by the entire village. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, both the courts below came to the conclusion that Dharmshala and the Panchayat Ghar are in existence over the property in dispute, which are continuing in possession of the respondent Gram Panchayat for the last so many years. The long and continuing possession of the respondent Gram Panchayat over the premises in dispute has been proved. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any RSA No. 577 of 2011 3 illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decree. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in the second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 13.7.2011 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE