IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.745 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 5th November, 2008 Major Singh … Appellant Versus Balwant Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the appellant. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Major Singh had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from house/ haweli. Premises/ suit land has been detailed and described in the heading of the plaint. Plaintiff had set out a case that the construction was made by his fore-fathers and he is in possession of the disputed premises and defendants are bent upon to interfere in his possession. Notice was issued to the respondent-defendants. They caused their appearance. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is not the owner in possession of the suit property rather the same is shamlat land and same belongs to village Chaudhary Wala and the Gram Panchayat of the village is in peaceful possession of the property. It was also stated that Gram Panchayat had made an application regarding illegal acts of the plaintiff and a compromise was arrived at on 11th March, 2000. The compromise was not honoured. Therefore, Gram Panchayat submitted an application to DDPO, Amritsar through BDPO on 8th May, 2000. After obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner, DDPO, with the help of SSP, Tarn Taran, Gram Panchayat took the possession of the disputed property on 5th July, 2000. It was further pleaded that appellant-plaintiff was not in Regular Second Appeal No.745 of 2008 possession of the suit land. After completion of the pleadings, issues were drawn by the trial Court. Plaintiff, during the cross-examination, admitted that on 5th July, 2000, possession was taken with the police help by the Gram Panchayat. It was also admitted in the cross-examination by the plaintiff that land is shamlat land. The Gram Panchayat had not been made party to the suit. The trial Court further gave a finding that plaintiff has never remained in possession of the land in dispute, rather an attempt has been made by him to illegally occupy the possession, a few days prior to filing of the suit and DDPO, with the help of police, has taken the possession. The plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the property in question. Taking into consideration the evidence of the defendants along with the photographs and evidence of DW-1 Amarjit Singh and DW-2 Rashpal Singh, it was also held that there was no haweli built on the land, but there was a temporary structure. Aggrieved against the order of the trial Court, appellant had filed an appeal before the appellate Court below. The findings of the learned trial Court have been concurred by the appellate Court below. Two courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact that appellant was not in possession of the suit property and the suit land belongs to the Gram Panchayat. In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below, counsel for the appellant has failed to formulate any substantial question of law, which could detain the attention of this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 05, 2008 rps 2