IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.4396 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 11th November, 2008 Dera Swami Narainpuri … Appellant Versus Nagar Council Bassi Pathanan … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. J.K. Gurna, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) This is another case, where in the garb of Mandir or a religious institution, land belonging to public institutions like Nagar Council is being usurped. Defendant filed a suit to the effect that in the revenue record, there is a Gair Mumkin Mandir and is in the possession of the plaintiff since 1st December, 1953. According to plaint itself, in the revenue record, defendant i.e. Nagar Council, Bassi Pathana is shown as owner of the suit property. The suit was filed through its Mahant Ram Puri, who claimed himself to be the Manager of the Mandir/ Devi Mandir. It was stated therein that Dera Swami Narainpuri, through its Mahant, Rampuri Chela Baba Sunder Puri, is in possession of 14 kanals and 15 marlas of land. Notice of the suit was issued. Reply was filed by the Nagar Council stating therein that the suit is not maintainable, plaintiff has got no locus standi and the suit is bad for non issuance of notice under Section 52 of the Punjab Municipal Act. In the written statement, it was stated that Regular Second Appeal No.4396 of 2005 alleged Mandir is only on 5 kanals of land, which is in illegal possession of the plaintiff and not on the whole khasra number. Trial Court examined the evidence and held that the permanent structure and possession of the plaintiff is over 5 kanals of land. It further came to the conclusion that the first time entry regarding the possession was noticed in the Jamabandi for the year 1998-99 and the suit was filed immediately thereafter on 21st December, 2000. After discussing the entire evidence, the trial Court held that the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed to the extent that the defendant is restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the land measuring 5 kanals, except in due course of law. The findings of the trial Court were assailed by the present appellant before the lower appellate Court. District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib appreciated the evidence of PW-1 Roshan Lal, PW-2 Mukhtiar Singh and PW-3 Mahant Ram Puri. Taking the revenue record into consideration, the lower appellate Court held that as per the Jamabandi for the year 1989-99, and the Khasra Girdawari for year 1999 (Ex.P-1), Nagar Council, Bassi Pathana is described as owner of the suit property measuring 14 kanals and 15 marlas. Taking into consideration that the Temple is in existence in 5 kanals of land in dispute, it upheld the findings of the trial Court that the possession of the plaintiff is protected over 5 kanals of land and plaintiff cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law. Concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two courts below are neither perverse nor against the evidence. Counsel for the appellant has failed to formulate any substantial question of law. Counsel for the appellant stated that documentary evidence has not been appreciated. It is stated that the Khasra Girdawari for the Rabi 1993 was corrected in the name of appellant plaintiff on 13th October, 1994. No presumption of truth can be attached to the entries made in the Khasra Girdawari. Therefore, in case the plaintiffs have colluded with the revenue authorities to usurp the land, no value can be attached to the same. The Municipal Council has 2 Regular Second Appeal No.4396 of 2005 already not been performing its duty and has not safeguarded the interest of the public by conceding the possession of the plaintiff over 5 kanals of land. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 11, 2008 rps 3