11 57 1 4 e1 Reqular Second Appeal Noe 2846 of 2010 IOSMIe IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH eee Date of Decision2 Februarv Il 1 2011 j Reqular Second ApPeal No 2846 of 2010 lOSMl 0 Shiv Charan Appellant eee 0 VERSUS C5 I Ct Gram PanchayatVlllage Fatehpur Billoch Tehsil Ballabgarh District Faridabad throughits Sarpanch Respondent Z Cr I CORAM HONBLE MRaJUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Z 1 Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment7 00 2 To be referred to the Reportersor not7 4r 3 Whether the judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest7 7 Z Presentl MrAdish Gupta Advocate Om for the appellant MOHINDER PAL J Shiv Charan is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgmentsand decrees passed by the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction in respectof the Iand in disputewas dlsmissed e 4 s41 b D I Mr Adish Gupta Advocate appearing for the appellantand have perusedthe impugnedjudgments Gupta Suruchi 2012.11.21 13: 00 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 58 1 e2 Reqular Second Appeal No 2846 of 2010 lOaMl The plalntiffhad filed a sult for permanentinjunction restrainingthe defendantGram Panchayat from demolishlngthe wall and from carvlng out any gateor drain or to make out a passagefrom the Iand In dispute claiming that it Iand in 1 disputelwas his a bsolute ownership lr The trlal Court after framing issues arisingout of the 0 43 pleadings of the parties and recordlng thelr evidence dismissed I the suit filed by the plalntiff The appeal preferredby the plaintlff C5 I against the judgmentand decree passed by the trlal Court was dismissed by the Iower appellateCourt The findingsrecorded Z by both the Courts below are the findlngsof fact It could not Gr be pointedout by the Iearned counsel for the appellant that I such findings are based on mlsreading of evidence or that Z material evidence has not been taken Into consideratlon It is e CO admitted that the Iand In disputeis recorded as Shamlat Deh In the revenue record In the Jamabandl for the year 1966 m Z Exhibit PA the land In dlspute is recorded as such Ise Shamlat tl Deh Jamabandi Exhlblt PA proves that the Iand in dispute was earmarked for common purpose ie for GHADAKHAD to be used by all the villagers In his crossvexaminatlon plalntiffShlv Charan PW ll admitted that duringconsolidation proceedlngsIn the village the Iand In dlsputewas kept for Gltwad common purposes It was also adm itted by Shri Chand PW 21 in his crossmexamination that during consolidation proceedingsthe Iand in disputewas reserved for common purpose lt is well settled that a person In an unauthorized possessionof the Iand Gupta Suruchi 2012.11.21 13: 00 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 59 V e Reqular Second A1l Noe 2846 of 2010 108141 cannot be held entitled to injunctionagainst its true owner In this View of the matter no fault can be found with the findings offact arrived at by both the Courts below Under the circumstances I do not find any patent 1 illegality or irregularityinthe flndingsrecorded by the Courts below 0 which may give rise to any substantialquestlonof Iaw in the present 0 appeale Resultantly this appeal IS herebydismissed being I C5 without any merit Z MOHINDER PAL I 11 1 20110 JUDGE ak r J 1 T3 PA9O t0 MIT6 e 1 CO 7 Z 11 Gupta Suruchi 2012.11.21 13: 00 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document