-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 18 of 2011 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 05, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 18 of 2011 (O&M). Punjab State and others ... Appellants VERSUS Jagan Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr.Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the appellants. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The respondents-defendants i.e State of Punjab through the District Collector, Faridkot, Tehsildar, Faridkot and Naib Tehsildar, Faridkot are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents i.e Jagan Singh, Pritam Singh and Gian Singh sons of Kartar Singh for -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 18 of 2011 (O&M). declaration and perpetual injunction that their (plaintiffs- respondents') names required to be incorporated as owners in column No.4 of the Jamabandi in respect of the land in dispute was decreed. It is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the plaintiffs had wrongly and illegally been recorded as 'Ghair Marusi' in column No.5 of the Jamabandi by the defendants-appellants and they (plaintiffs) ought to have been recorded as owners in column No.4 of the Jamabandi in respect of the land in dispute and the act of recording the plaintiffs as `Ghair Marusi' in column No.5 of the Jamabandi was in violation of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court contained in the judgment / order dated 27.11.1996 (Exhibit P.28). It has been held by both the Courts below that the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as owners of the property in dispute by virtue of assign/transfer of the same in their favour as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Exhibit P.28) and, thus, they are entitled to protect their possession from the acts of the defendants. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned State counsel that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 18 of 2011 (O&M). which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 05, 2011. JUDGE ak