Regular Second Appeal No.538 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-3.8.2010 Municipal Committee, Sampla ...Appellant Versus Dharambir son of Nathu and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the appellant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The epitome of the facts, relevant for disposal of present appeal and emanating from the record, is that Dharambir son of Nathu, Khazan son of Kidare and Smt.Kailashpati widow of Tara respondent-plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) filed the present suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the State of Haryana through its Collector and Gram Panchayat, now Municipal committee, Sampla appellant-defendants (hereinafter to be referred as “the defendants”) from dispossessing them, inter-alia, pleading that the disputed plots were allotted to them as per instructions and policy of State Government as they are poor persons. They have constructed their houses and are residing therein with their family members. 2. Concisely, according to the plaintiffs, they are owners and in possession and the defendants have got no right, title or interest to dispossess them from their respective plots/houses. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter-alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, jurisdiction, estoppel and notices under sections 80 CPC and 205 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. On merits, the defendants have admitted the allotment of disputed plots to plaintiffs, but claimed that since they have not constructed the houses on the allotted plots Regular Second Appeal No.538 of 2010 2 within a period of two years from the date of allotment as per terms and conditions under Rule 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (for short “the Rules”), so, the suit property re-vested in the Gram Panchayat, free from all encumbrances. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiffs filed the replication. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the relevant issues for proper adjudication of the case. 5. The parties to the lis, brought on record the oral as well as documentary evidence, in order to substantiate their respective stands. 6. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the evidence on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants from dispossessing them from the disputed property except in due course of law, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 27.1.2007. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant-defendant-Municipal Committee filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 23.9.2009. 8. The appellant-defendant-Committee still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and the decrees of the Courts below and filed the present appeal. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, after going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the appeal. 10. However, the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant that since the plaintiffs did not construct their houses on their Regular Second Appeal No.538 of 2010 3 respective plots in pursuance of the terms and conditions of allotment, so, they are not entitled to claim the ownership and possession over the same, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 11. As is evident from the record that the plaintiffs claimed that the disputed plots were allotted to them by way of Government Policy, they have constructed the houses on their respective plots and are residing therein with their family members. The factum of allotment of the plots to the plaintiffs is admitted, but the defendants claimed that they have violated the terms and conditions of the allotment under Rule 13-A of the Rules. Assuming for the sake of argument (though not admitted), the plaintiffs have violated the terms and conditions of allotment, even then, they cannot forcibly be dispossessed from their respective houses. No cogent evidence is forth coming on record as to whether any legal order, cancelling the allotment of the plaintiffs, was ever passed by the competent authority after affording the opportunity of being heard to them. The appellant- defendant, which is a statutory body, cannot arbitrarily and forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs. The defendants can only adopt legal recourse to recover the possession from them, in accordance with law. It is so held by the trial Court. Meaning thereby, the defendants cannot possibly be saith to be aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below in any manner. Thus, the contrary arguments of learned counsel for appellant-defendant 'stricto sensu' deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 12. No meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, to assail the findings of the Courts below in this context. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the appellant-defendant, in this relevant behalf, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 13. Moreover, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on Regular Second Appeal No.538 of 2010 4 record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the Courts below have recorded the concurrent findings of fact that in view of report of local commissioner, it cannot be said that no construction of the plaintiffs was at the spot; they are owners and in possession of their respective plots and the defendants have not followed the procedure contained in Rule 13A (2) of the Rules regarding issuance of notice before cancellation of the gift deed. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this regard. 14. In other words, the entire matter revolves around the re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved in the second appeal, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned judgments/decrees of the Courts below as contemplated under section 100 CPC, in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 15. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant. 16. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 3.8.2010 Judge AS