429 U 4m Reclular Second Appeal No348 of 2010 lOSMI IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision2 March 2011 1 C Requiar Second Appeal Noa 1348 of 2010 106M10 0 C0 Shankar Appellant I C5 VERSUS I Z Krishna Respondent I CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Z 1 Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment 7 00 2 To be referred to the Reporters or not 7 3 Whether the judgmentshou Id be reported ill the Digest7 7 Z Presentl Mr Hiten Nehra Advocate tl for the appeilant MreSSe Gill Advocate for the respondent MOHINDER PAL Jn Plaintiff Shankar is In second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first AppellateCourt whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession of the Rani Anita 2012.11.19 14: 27 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 430 1 2 Reqular Second Apoeal Nos 1348 of 2010 l08M10 suit Iand and compensation for its suit Ianc utiiization by the was dismissed I have heard the Iearned counsel for the parties and have gone throughthe records of the case During the pendencyof this appeal the plaintif tm 0 appellant filed Civii Miscellaneous AppiicationNo 7910C of 2010 0 for placing on record report preparedby Qanungo on 42010 0 I with regardto Khasra Nos183 to 186 subjectnatter of dispute itl C9 this appeal alongwith Aks Shijra Annexure A preparedby the I Qanungoon 42010 This applicationis allowed and the said Z documents are taken on record Ct The piaintiffeappellant claimed that defendant respondent Krishna had forciblyoccupied the suit Iand measuring 3 Marlas formingpartof Khasra No184 which was the ownershipof Z the plaintiff as a cosharer The piaintiff placed on record 00 Jamabandi for the year 199899 Exhibit PlJ showing that 7 Z the plotin disputewas owned by him along with other coesharers a However the suit Iand admittedly is not cultivable Iand as it IS adjoining the abadi Iand of the village Column No8 of the Jamabandi for the year 19981999 0Exhibit P lI also mentions this Iand as Gair Mumkin Abadi The Khasra Girdwari placed on record by the plaintiffalso shows that the Iand comprised in Khasra No164 is no more cultivable Iand Rather itis Gair Mumkin Abadj In this case the had examined Sat Pal Mattu Office Qanungo as DW3 who had been appointed as a Local Commissioner by the Court of Civil Judge Rani Anita 2012.11.19 14: 27 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 431 l 8m Reclular Second Aooeal Noe 1348 of 2010 OaMle Senior Divisionl Phillaur in a suit titled as Swarna Vse Krishnae In that case Sat Pal Mattu Office Qanungo VV31 had submitted his report Exhibit D3IA in which demarcation of Khasra Nos 183 to 186 had been made Sat Pal Mattu Office e Qanungo DWI 1 in his said report Exhibit DW31A made it r clear that the house occupied by Krishna iefendantl was 0 situated within Lal Lakeer of the village and was beyond khasra U I Nos183 to 186 Even in the report prepared by Qanungo on C5 462010 with regard to Khasra Nos 183 to 186 which has been taken on record by allowing Civil Miscellaneous Application Z No7918C of 2010 of the it is not mentioned that the suit iand belongsto the plaintifopeliant Even plaintiff I Shankar PW 11 in his crossexamination done on 2 3 2005 stated Z in unequivocalterms that defendant IS not in possession of my Iand rather she is in iliegal possessionof panchayatIand Itmay 01 also be mentioned here that the had filed 7 Z an application before the triai Court for appointment of some Ll revenue OffiCia1 aS Iocal commissioner who would visit the spot and would report about actual and factual positionof the suit property after its demarcation Strangelyenough the plaintifvappellant opposed the appiication of the defendantrespondent for appointmentof a Local Commissioner In his reply filed to the said application It Ieads to the onlyinference that the plaintiffe appellant knew that his case wouid be wea kened if report of the Local Commissioner in respect of the suit property after its demarcation by some revenue official had been broughton record It Rani Anita 2012.11.19 14: 27 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 432 1 4 4 4 Reclular Second AoPeal Noe 1348 of 2010 lOSMIe was only for this reason that the piaintifappellant opposed the applicationof the defendantrespondent for appointmentof a Locai Commissioner in this case Under these circumstances the Iower appellateCourt was justifiedill hoiding that the had failed to prove that the suit property occupied by the defendant was his that therefore the 0 plaintifeappellantcouid neither ask for possessionof the suit C I property nor he could ask for compensation and that the suit of C5 the plaintiffappellant for permanent injunction was not I rnaintainable Z In view of the above I do not find any patent illegality 0 or irregularity Itl the findings of fact recorded by the first I AppellateCourt which may give rise to any substantial questionof Iaw in the present appeal Z Hence the present appealis dismissed However there 00 shall be no order as to costs W2 Z P7 l7 C MOHINDER PAL I March 2011 JUDGE 1 ak J r cl2 r 1 QJ t tl Rani Anita 2012.11.19 14: 27 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document