R.S.A.No. 889 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 889 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.2.2011 All inhabitants/residents of village Gulkani ......Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.S.Godara, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in a representative capacity to the effect that they be declared owners in possession of the suit property . The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that they were inhabitants of village Gulkani and were owners in possession of the suit land for the last more than 100 years and were using the suit land for common purposes without any payment of rent or batai. The plaintiffs were tethering their cattle and placing cow dung cakes and bitoras etc in the suit property. The land was also being used for grazing by the cattle. Before the year 1962, the land in dispute was in a scattered position and was later consolidated in one place. The R.S.A.No. 889 of 2009 (O&M) 2 land was owned by the Irrigation Department. Although the land is now being used for common purposes by the inhabitants of the village but during consolidation it had been described to be in possession of the Irrigation Department. The defendants were threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. Defendants in their written statement averred that the suit property was in illegal possession of the inhabitants of the village Gulkani. The suit property was owned by Provincial Government and was in the possession of the Irrigation Department as per the revenue record. This land had been declared surplus vide order dated 13.9.2000 and now the same was to be put to auction. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners and in actual physical, exclusive and proprietary possession over the suit land and the revenue entries in the name of defendant No.1 are illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and are liable to be set aside, as alleged in the plaint? OPP. 2.Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for want of notice as required under Section 80 of CPC? OPD 4. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide R.S.A.No. 889 of 2009 (O&M) 3 judgment and decree dated 8.1.2008. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 9.12.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Jind. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. As per Ex/P-3, copy of the jamabandi for the year 1996- 97, the suit property is owned by the Provincial Government and is described in possession of the Irrigation Department. Merely because the plaintiffs are using the suit property for tethering their cattle or placing bitoras would not make them owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. Defendants have also stated in the written statement that the plaintiffs are in illegal possession of the suit property but no injunction order can be granted against a true owner to an illegal occupant of the suit land. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 03, 2011 anita R.S.A.No. 889 of 2009 (O&M) 4