R.S.A.No. 1094 of 2007(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1094 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision:August 18, 2009 Prithi Ram -deceased through L.Rs. ---Appellants versus Town Improvement Trust, Pathankot and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. R.S.Manhas,Advocate, for the appellants None for the respondents. *** SABINA J. Plaintiff – Prithi Ram filed a suit for permanent injunction. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot, vide judgment and decree dated 15.5.2001 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by Additional District Judge (Ad hoc)-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 17.1.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. R.S.A.No. 1094 of 2007(O&M) {2} The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc)-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, in paras 2and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “The plaintiff claims to be owner in possession of the suit property which is residential house described in the site plan with letters ABCD in read colour and fully described in the head note of the plaint. The plaintiff entered into possession underneath the house i.e. suit property more than 40 years back. The land was Shamlat. The defendant earlier also threatened to dispossess the plaintiff and plaintiff had to file the suit for permanent injunction which was decreed by the court of Sh. Iqbal Singh Bajwa, the then Ld. Sub Judge IInd Class, Pathankot and defendant trust was restrained from evicting the plaintiff without due course of law and appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by the court of Sh. H.S.Bakshi, the then Ld. Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 6.8.80. Thereafter defendant filed a petition for eviction of the plaintiff from the land before the Collector, Gurdaspur, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 6.3.1985 and the appeal filed by the defendants was also dismissed by Sh. K.S.Janujua, Commissioner, Jalandhar-Division, Jalandhar vide order dated 3.6.87. Then, the plaintiff constructed residential house and shop over the land which is suit property, but R.S.A.No. 1094 of 2007(O&M) {3} the defendant raised objection to the construction and subsequently compounded the offence by charging fee from the plaintiff. The defendant received Rs. 203/- from the plaintiff vide receipt dated 11.10.89 and thus, construction raised by the plaintiff became regular and legal and the defendants admitted the title of the plaintiff qua suit property. The official of the defendants visited the suit property and threatened to demolish the suit property, which necessitated the filing of the present suit. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant, who took up the plea that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. All the allegations made in the plaint have been denied by the defendant. It is the case of the defendant that the suit land bears part of Khasra No. 1385/660, 1386/660/1387/660 total measuring 1 kanal 16 marlas which has been purchased by improvement trust and possession of the same delivered to it vide rapt No. 584 dated 15.6.70. It is further case of the defendant trust that when they asked for copy of the site plan, no sanctioned site plan was found with the plaintiff.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the house marked by letters ABCD shown red in colour in the site plan attached with the plaint? OPP (2)If issue No. 1 is proved whether the plaintiff is entitled to R.S.A.No. 1094 of 2007(O&M) {4} decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP (3)Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable? OPD (4)Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit? OPD (5)Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing this suit? OPD (6)Whether the suit is bad for non issue of notice, if so its effect? OPD (7)Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession and demolishing the house in question. Learned Additional District Judge in his judgment has observed that the plaintiff had got a plot land on lease way back in the year 1974 and had no right to raise construction over the same, as a lessee was not permitted to raise construction under the law. Defendant-trust became owner of the suit land vide sale deed Ex. D-1. As per the same Khasra No. 1385/660(0-10), 1386/660(0-9) and 1387/660 (0-17), were transferred in favour of the Improvement Trust, Pathankot. Plaintiff in his cross examination had admitted that the suit land was comprised in the said khasra numbers. The case of the plaintiff was that he had raised construction after it was compounded by the defendant-trust. Reliance is placed on Mark 'A', photo copy of the receipt issued by Nagar Palika, Pathankot on 11.10.1989. The Trust came in existence on 27.11.1979. However, the receipt was alleged to have been issued by the Nagar Palika. R.S.A.No. 1094 of 2007(O&M) {5} Learned Additional District Judge had rightly held that no reliance can be placed on the said receipt as it had neither been duly proved and exhibited nor it could have been issued by the Nagar Palika on the relevant date. In these circumstances, learned Addl. District Judge further rightly held that the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction qua protection of illegal construction raised by him. Plaintiff had earlier sought relief of injunction claiming himself to be a tenant under the defendant-trust. Vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.1979, the suit for permanent injunction was decreed. The findings of fact arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge calls for no interference by this Court in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 18, 2009 PARAMJIT