R.S.A.No. 3849 of 2007 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3849 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.10. 2009 Tana Ram and another ......Appellants Versus Gram Panchayat and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Rajesh Arora, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Kurukshetra vide judgment and decree dated 18.4.2007 . In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide judgment and decree dated 22.9.2007. Hence, the present appeal by plaintiffs No.2 and 9. R.S.A.No. 3849 of 2007 (O&M) 2 Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiffs now appellants have filed suit against the defendant Gram Panchayat seeking decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from damaging, demolishing or destroying the Balmiki Temple and Balmiki Asharam in any manner and also from worshiping the plaintiffs No.2 to 59 in the said temple and Ashram, situated at village Mirzapur Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra. It is further prayed that a decree for mandatory injunction be passed directing the defendant to construct two rooms and boundary walls in the portion ABC at its own expenses and to restore the position of the said site ABC as it was prior to demolition and further the defendant be directed to compensate the plaintiffs regarding damage of trees from portion ABC shown in the site plan on the allegations that plaintiffs No.2 and 4 to 59 are Balmiki by caste. They worship Bhagwan Maharishi Balmiki as a God. They have a firm faith in the guidelines, mythology and preaching of Maharishi Balmiki. A temple and a Balmiki Ashram were constructed at village Mirzapur 25/30 years ago and the plaintiffs like various other Balmikis are praying obeisance R.S.A.No. 3849 of 2007 (O&M) 3 and praying there since then. Every year, a huge gathering of Balmiki Community is gathered at the temple at the time of Balmiki Jayanti. Every year a number of worshipers are increasing. Balmiki Community is almost illiterate, landless and jobless and poor community leaving below the poverty line and they have raised temple and Ashram according to their economic position. A garden, a Shiv Temple and two rooms were also raised to add to a Balmiki Ashram for the stay of the devotees. The said temple and Ashram was constructed at the barren land and with the belief that it was situated within the abadi deh of village Mirzapur. There is no obstruction or interruption or hindrance in the worship of plaintiffs No.2 to 59 or in the use of said land for the purpose of temple and Ashram for the last 25/30 years. The defendants has started claiming right, title and interest over the same. It is also being alleged by them that the said Balmiki Ashram and temple is situated not within the Lal Dora, rather at Khasra No.158 belonging to the defendant. The said Khasra about abadi, which is bounded as under:- North: Village Pond in Abadi South: Phirni East: Khasra No.157 and 156 under possession of R.S.A.No. 3849 of 2007 (O&M) 4 Balmiki Jagir Singh West: Village pond in khasra No.158 The said small piece of land underneath the Balmiki Temple and Balmiki Ashram is not required by the defendant for any purpose and even otherwise the said piece of land cannot be put to any other use. Plaintiff No.1 has acquired ownership rights on the suit land by prescription of time as it is using the suit property as its full owner within public view and the possession of plaintiff No.1 over the suit property is hostile, continuous and is as of owner to the knowledge of the defendant and the entire world. In the year 1984 the defendant had tried to obstruct in the development work of suit property and the suit was filed by Haryana Balmiki Youva Sabha. Later on the defendant promised not to create hindrance and obstruction in the development work of temple and Ashram and that suit was withdrawn being compromised on 18.5.1987. The defendant is threatening to dispossess plaintiff No.1 and to dismantle the temple and Ashram forcibly and also in the execution of any ejectment order passed by A.C.Ist Grade, Thanesar on 1.5.1984, which is not binding upon the plaintiffs as the said order is not against the plaintiffs and the said ejectment order even otherwise, has become time barred R.S.A.No. 3849 of 2007 (O&M) 5 and not executable. On 2.6.2006 the defendant and the other persons have destroyed two rooms, boundary walls and the trees of the Ashram. Hence, this suit. 3. In response to the notice of the suit, defendant appeared and filed written statement wherein preliminary objections to the effect that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file and maintain the suit; that the suit is not maintainable; that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit; that the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct; that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit; that the suit is hit by section 10 of CPC; that the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it has been alleged that in fact the land in dispute is owned by defendant and the same has been illegally occupied by the plaintiffs. The defendant filed ejectment proceedings before the A.C.Ist Grade, Thanesar and ejectment order was passed against the illegal occupant i.e. Jagir Singh. The present suit has been got filed at the instance of said Jagir Singh. In fact Jagir Singh and his sons want to grab the suit property in collusion with each other. The defendant has obtained the ejectment order against the illegal occupant i.e. Jagir Singh on Khasra R.S.A.No. 3849 of 2007 (O&M) 6 No.158. There is no temple of Balmiki as alleged by plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have no concern with the suit property. The land in dispute is of Khasra No.158 and not of Abadi Deh. There is also no temple so question of worshiping does not arise. A thada (Chabutra/platform) of 5'x5' which was constructed by Jagir Singh in the suit property, is still in existence and in the present suit, the said platform is only the suit property and none has disturbed it. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file and maintain the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD 6. Whether this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD 7. Whether the suit is hit under Section 10 R.S.A.No. 3849 of 2007 (O&M) 7 CPC ? OPD 8. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties? OPD 9. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. The dispute in the present case relates to Khasra No.158. As per copy of jamabandi for the year 2000-01 Ex.D-2, Khasra No.158 is described to be owned by Gram Panchayat Deh. Thus, the revenue record does not depict the possession of the plaintiffs over the property in dispute. Jagir Singh had filed a petition under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act (for short 'the Act') against Gram Panchayat claiming ownership over khasra No.156. Vide order dated 8.3.1984 passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Thanesar, it was held that Jagir Singh was in illegal possession of the same and Gram Panchayat was held at liberty to take possession of the land illegally occupied by Jagir Singh after moving application under Section 7 (2i) of the Act. Khasra No.156 adjoins khasra No.158. A perusal of Ex.PW-2/A reveals that on 2.6.2002, Jagir Singh was also found to be in unauthorised possession of khasra No.158 and the possession of the same was delivered to Gram Panchyat Mirzapur. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the R.S.A.No. 3849 of 2007 (O&M) 8 evidence on record, have given a finding of fact that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the existence of temple or Ashram at the spot. The said finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below cannot be interfered with by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 22, 2009 anita