IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3002 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 6.5.2010 Satbir and others ....Appellants Versus The Gram Panchayat of village Puthar and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the appellants. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. Delay of 516 days in re-filing and one day in filing the appeal is condoned in the interest of justice and for the reasons stated in the application. The plaintiffs are in second appeal. They filed a suit for mandatory injunction and in the alternative a suit for possession. They pleaded that they are in exclusive possession of the property which is described by letters ABCD and shown in red in the site plan wherein they had constructed a residential house. They also pleaded that there was in existence a public street between their property and the property of the respondents and further pleaded that he respondents had demolished a wall and encroached upon the portion which belonged to them. They next set up a report of the Local Commissioner who had conducted the demarcation at an earlier point R.S.A.No.3002 of 2009 (O&M) -2- of time in the year 1993 and pleaded that according to this report they were not found to be encroaching upon any area of the public street, however, their possession was determined in this report. Respondent No.1 contested the suit, disputed the allegations on merits and pleaded that the appellants are owners in possession of Khasra No.124 but denied that the portion marked by letters ABCD shown in red colour in the site plan was a part and parcel of Khasra No.124. He pleaded that it was a pucca public street for the use of the public at large. The parties went to trial on number of issues out of which relevant one is issue No.1 which is extracted as under :- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction on the grounds as alleged in the plaint or in alternative for relief of possession from the property in dispute as detailed and described in the head note of the plaint?OPP” Both the Courts below concluded on the basis of the demarcation which was got conducted during the course of proceedings in the suit whereby measurements of Khasra Nos.124 and 125 belonging to the appellants and respondents, respectively, was established and it was found that in between these two khasra numbers there is Gali No.110 and that there was no encroachment made by the respondents in the Gali which was the disputed area as shown in the site plan. The suit was accordingly dismissed which has resulted in filing of the instant regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that his R.S.A.No.3002 of 2009 (O&M) -3- objections to the Local Commissioner's report which he had filed during the course of proceedings remain undecided and therefore a great prejudice has been caused to him. I am not in agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Ordinarily the objections ought to have been met by the Court but if the material on record is to be seen, no prejudice seems to have been caused to the appellants. They were associated with the Local Commissioner's proceedings and their father also appended his signatures thereto that he did not raise any objection regarding the mode and manner of the demarcation carried out by the Local Commissioner. In this eventuality mere objection to the report of the Local Commissioner seems to be a simple obstructive intent of the appellants. It is a pure question of fact which has been determined by the courts below and no substantial question of law arises for the determination of this Court. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 6.5.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss