IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3408 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 18, 2011. Bachitter Singh. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Devinder Singh and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.9498-C of 2011 Heard. Taking into consideration the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 176 days in filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned. Civil Misc. stands disposed of. CM No.9497-C of 2011 The application is allowed subject to just exceptions. RSA No.3408 of 2011 RSA No.3408 of 2011. The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 21.10.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 10.03.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur vide which suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering in his possession over the land in dispute on the plea that the plaintiff along with his brothers had been continuing in possession of the land in dispute under the Central Government for the last so many years and that the respondents-defendants are having no right upon the same. Upon notice being issued, respondents-defendants contested the suit by taking the plea that Central Government is owner of the suit land and however, it is denied that the appellant-plaintiff is in possession under the Central Government. Rather the plea has been taken that respondents- defendants have been continuing in possession of the same under the Central Government and that they made it fit for cultivation after spending huge amount. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff. Appeal filed by him against the said judgment 2 RSA No.3408 of 2011 and decree was also dismissed by learned Addl. District Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that both the courts below have erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondents-defendants are in possession of the land in dispute. Rather the plea has been taken that as per the revenue record, appellant- plaintiff had been continuing in possession of the land in dispute and that the revenue entries had been illegally changed during the pendency of the present suit. Respondents-defendants have placed reliance upon the report of Naib Tehsildar Ex.D-1 vide which khasra girdawari entry was corrected in the names of respondents-defendants. The said order was confirmed by Asstt. Collector IInd Grade vide order Ex.D2. Appeal filed by present appellant was also dismissed by the competent Court. Respondents- defendants have also placed reliance upon rent receipts Ex.D4 and Ex.D5 vide which rent was paid by them to the Central Government. Appellant- plaintiff failed to show as to how he along with his brothers had come in possession of the land in dispute. No rent receipt was produced by him. Admittedly, land in dispute is owned by the Central Government. Central Government has not even been impleaded as a party in this suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on 3 RSA No.3408 of 2011 misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 18, 2011. JUDGE Sachin M. 4