RSA No.726 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.726 of 2011 (O&M) And Cross Objection No. 9-C of 2011 Date of Decision: 03.11.2011 Nagar Panchayat, Ghanaur ...Appellant Vs. Mangat Singh ...Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. --- A.N.Jindal, J. Suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff/respondent (herein referred as the plaintiff) restraining the defendant/appellant (herein referred as the defendant) from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the premises, marked with letters ABCD in the site plan, as detailed in the head-note of the plaint, has been dismissed on 29.07.2008, but the appeal against the said judgment was accepted by the first appellate court vide judgment dated 13.10.2010 and the defendant was restrained from RSA No.726 of 2011 2 dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property forcibly and except in due course of law. Plaintiff has claimed his long possession over the suit property. He has stated that he is an Ex-service-man. He had constructed shops over the site in dispute many years ago. Thereafter, he replaced the roofs and repaired the building of the shops which are situated in the Bara of the plaintiff. On being threatened, he had to file a suit for permanent injunction. On notice, defendant appeared in court and contested the cause while submitting that the suit land vests in the Gram Panchayat, therefore, the plaintiff wanted to forcibly construct a building over it for which he has no right. Replication was also filed. From the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit property? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Relief. The trial court dismissed the suit but the appeal was accepted by the appellate court. Hence this appeal by 'Nagar Panchayat'. RSA No.726 of 2011 3 Heard, as a matter of fact, the plaintiff has not mentioned any khasra numbers of the site in dispute over which he has raised the construction and he has set up his claim on the basis of possessory title, whereas Nagar Panchayat, though did not disclose the khasra numbers of the property, yet during the course of arguments it has urged that site in dispute is the part of khasra Nos.1617, 1620 and 1640 to 1643 as per Jamabandi for the year 1995-96, Ex.D.2 but has not disputed about he existence of shops of the plaintiff over the area situated in village Ghanaur. However, Nagar Panchayat has failed to establish that the area so claimed has been encroached by the plaintiff and it is still to be proved that the suit property is part of the aforesaid khasra numbers. In view of the specific averments that the plaintiff has raised construction over the land and in the absence of denial about this fact, the plaintiff could protect his possession against whole of the world except true owner. No substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the defendant as well as the Cross-objections, filed by the plaintiffs, are dismissed with liberty to the Nagar Panchayat, Ghanaur that it could establish to be the owner of the land and seek possession by having recourse to the remedy as provided under law. (A.N.Jindal) 03.11.2011 Judge rp