RSA No.1320 of 2010 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1320 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 04.04.2011 Prithvi Singh and another ……Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Ashwinie Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Himanshu Raj, AAG, Haryana for the respondents. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiffs-Prithvi Singh and Jagdish, who were successful in the trial Court, but have been non-suited by the lower appellate Court, have filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiffs alleged that they are owners of 15 kanals 16 marlas land out of which defendants have encroached upon 4 kanals 1 marla land by making Nissing drain. Plaintiffs accordingly sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants to handover vacant possession of the said 4 kanals 1 marla land by restoring to its original level and condition. Permanent injunction was also claimed. Defendants denied the plaint allegations. It was denied that defendants have encroached upon plaintiffs’ land. Land for the drain was acquired in the year 1962 and the drain is running on the RSA No.1320 of 2010 (O & M) - 2 - original site without any alteration. Plaintiffs purchased their land in the year 1977. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2008 decreed the plaitniffs’ suit. However, first appeal preferred by the defendants has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 23.01.2009 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that vide demarcation report dated 13.08.1997 Ex.PW-2/A (Annexure P-3), plaintiffs’ land measuring 4 kanals 1 marla was found to have been encroached upon by the defendants under the drain and, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the said land. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents contended that as per own averments of the plaintiffs, they had taken possession of their encroached land in the year 1997 and the defendants allegedly again encroached upon the plaintiffs’ land measuring 4 kanals 1 marla in the year 2003, but there is not even an iota of evidence to depict that defendants have encroached upon plaintiffs’ land in the year 2003. RSA No.1320 of 2010 (O & M) - 3 - I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Demarcation report dated 13.08.1997 relied on by the plaintiff is of no help of the plaintiffs because according to their own version, they had taken possession of their encroached land in the year 1997, but their said land was again encroached upon by the defendants in the year 2003. Consequently, demarcation report dated 13.08.1997 is of no help to the plaintiffs. It cannot depict the encroachment allegedly made by the defendants in the year 2003. There is not even an iota of evidence on record to depict that defendants again encroached upon any land of the plaintiffs in or about the year 2003. Consequently, plaintiffs’ suit has been rightly dismissed by the lower appellate Court. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 04.04.2011. A.kaundal