R.S.A. No. 4292 of 2005 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4292 of 2005 Date of decision: 4.10.2007 Guriya Ram ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. J. S. Thind, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** RAJESH BINDAL, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal before this court against the judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court whereby the suit filed by him for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the actual physical possession of the appellant/plaintiff in the land in dispute was dismissed. The case is a glaring example of misuse of process of Court wherein appellant/plaintiff approached the trial Court by filing the suit on January 28, 2000 raising the plea that lease of the land in question was granted to him for one year, namely, 1998-99 for which he had deposited the lease money with the Sub Divisional Officer, Water Services Division, Sirsa on January 4, 1999. Neither there is any material on record to show that there was any further extension of the lease nor even the terms of the alleged lease for the year 1998-99 are on record. Learned trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff to the extent that respondents/defendants were restrained from dispossessing the appellant/plaintiff except in due course of law. However, in appeal, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was reversed by the learned Lower Appellate court while coming to the conclusion that there R.S.A. No. 4292 of 2005 -2- *** was no material on record to show that the appellant/plaintiff was even in possession of the land as no such lease as alleged by the appellant/plaintiff was ever granted in his favour rather the land was in possession of the Forest Department. In the revenue record produced before the Court, the respondents/defendants were shown to be owners in possession of the land in dispute. Nothing had been brought on record to show in what manner and by following what procedure the land in question was leased out to the appellant/plaintiff, except receipt dated January 4, 1999 that too at the most for the year 1998-99. Even that receipt was also denied by the respondents/defendants claiming the same to be a forged document. Even that receipt was also not proved by due process as was merely tendered in evidence by the appellant/plaintiff. Even if the case put up by the appellant/plaintiff is taken at its best, he was granted the alleged lease, namely, for one year i.e. 1998-99 and thereafter he does not have any right whatsoever to remain in possession of the land. On the date of filing of the suit, the appellant/plaintiff did not have any right whatsoever on the land in dispute even as per his own pleadings, accordingly, in my opinion, learned Lower Appellate Court has rightly non suited the appellant/plaintiff holding therein that an encroacher cannot seek injunction against the true owner. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. October 04, 2007 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge