IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2440 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 15.11.2010 Gram Panchayat, Devrala ... Appellant versus Net Ram & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present : Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. **** Gurdev Singh, J. This is the second appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant No.5 Gram Panchayat, Devrala against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2010 passed by learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Siwani Camp, Bhiwani decreeing the suit of respondent No.1 / plaintiff Net Ram for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from dispossessing him from the land in dispute forcibly and illegally. The plaintiff filed suit on the ground that he was coming in possession of the land in dispute as a tenant (gair maurusi) on the payment of 30 paisa chakota saal tamam (lease money) even prior to the partition of the country. He is in cultivating possession of the suit land and defendants have no right to dispossess him forcibly and illegally. The claim of the plaintiff was contested by defendants No.4 & 5. In their written statements, it has been submitted that RSA No.2440 of 2010 (O&M) -2- the plaintiff cannot be a tenant as this land vests in the Gram Panchayat free from all encumbrances. If any person was having any interest therein, the same stood terminated. The Gram Panchayat has every right to lease out this land to any person. Both the courts below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the land in dispute as a tresspasser and not as a tenant. Keeping in view his long possession, the decree for perpetual injunction was granted in his favour. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that when the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the land as a tenant, the lower courts should not have decreed his suit for permanent injunction as the property involved is public property and the courts should be slow while granting injunctions regarding such like properties. Though the plaintiff failed to prove that he is coming in possession of the land in dispute as a tenant yet he was able to prove that he was in possession from the last so many years. His possession over the land is liable to be protected as it was not the case of the appellant before the trial court that the initial entry of the plaintiff on the land in dispute was illegal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. November 15, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH) sonia JUDGE