C.R.No. 235 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 235 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.1.2011 Rachpal Singh ......Petitioner Versus Mandar Singh and another .......Respondents ********* CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. A.S. Jattana, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for delivery of vacant possession of the land measuring 5 marlas alleged to have been encroached by the defendants. The case of the plaintiff-petitioner in brief was that he was owner of 3 kanal 6 marlas bearing khasra No.194//5/2/2 (3-6) situated in revenue limits of village Maur Kalan. Petitioner took possession of the said land at the time of its purchase from Smt. Krishan Devi vide registered sale deeds dated 18.7.2001 and 1.8.2002. Mutation was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner on the basis of the said sale-deeds. Respondents purchased the land measuring 5 marlas comprised in khasra No.194//5/2/1 (0-5) and mutation was sanctioned in their favour qua the said khasra number. However, the C.R.No. 235 of 2011 (O&M) 2 respondents had demolished the boundary wall of the land belonging to the petitioner and had raised construction of one room and had, thus, encroached 5 marlas of land out of the land belonging to the petitioner. Respondents, in their written statement, averred that in fact the petitioner wanted to encroach upon the land belonging to the respondents. Respondents had purchased land from Gurmail Singh and Sarabjit Kaur vide sale deed dated 28.12.2007 and had taken possession of the said land. Respondents had raised boundary wall after purchase of the land and had constructed their residential house. The suit had been filed just to harass and humiliate the respondents. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of vacant possession of the suit property, as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 3. Whether the defendants have ownership over the land measuring 0 kanal 5 marlas, falling in khasra no.194//5/2/2? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit ? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts form the court ? OPD C.R.No. 235 of 2011 (O&M) 3 8. Relief. Vide judgment and decree dated 10.11.2010 suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Undisputedly, the petitioner had purchased 3 kanal, 6 marlas of land bearing khasra No.194//5/2/2. Respondents had purchased land bearing khasra No.194//5/2/1. Although, the petitioner is owner of khasra No.194//5/2/2 but he was required to lead some further evidence to the effect that the respondents had encroached 5 marlas of land out of the said khasra number. Petitioner, however, failed to prove on record any demarcation report which would establish the plea of the petitioner that 5 marlas of land belonging to him had been encroached by the respondents. The compromise alleged to have been effected between the parties by the petitioner was also not duly proved on record. In these circumstances, the Court below had rightly dismissed the suit of the petitioner. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 14, 2011 Anand