R.S.A No. 748 of 2007 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 748 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : November 20, 2009 Surinder Singh and another, ...... Appellant (s) v. Punjab Government and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the appellants. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in their possession except in due course of law. Both the Courts have found as a fact that the land in dispute is protected forest land and that an order of eviction under the Public Premises Act had been passed against the appellants. In these circumstances, both the Courts have dismissed the suit of the appellants. The following questions have been proposed :- “ (i) Whether the impugned judgments are wrong, R.S.A No. 748 of 2007 (O&M) ::2:: illegal, perverse and based on misreading of evidence ? (ii) Whether the Courts below have misconstrued the entries in revenue record ? (iii) Whether the findings on issue No.2 are contrary to the revenue record showing the appellants as `Gair Marusi' ?” It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Counsel for the appellants has relied upon Ram Gowda v. M.Varadappa Naidu, 2004(1) SCC 769 to contend that even a trespasser is entitled to protect his possession except by law. In my opinion, Ram Gowda's case (supra) would not be applicable to the present controversy in view of the fact that an order of eviction had been passed against the appellants. Apart from this, this Court cannot countenance the idea of protecting the possession of a person who may have occupied protected forest law. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 20, 2009. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 748 of 2007 (O&M) ::3::