RSA No. 3388 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3388 of 2007 Date of Decision: 3.9.2009 Kundan Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Pritam Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Shri P.L. Singla, Advocate, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiffs are second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, whereby their suit for declaration claiming title over the suit property by adverse possession and decree for permanent injunction being in possession of the suit property, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly concedes that he is not challenging the part of the decree whereby suit of the plaintiffs for declaration was dismissed. The only challenge in the appeal is that since the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property, may be unauthorisedly, the defendants cannot dispossess them forcibly and that the defendants can seek possession only in accordance with law. The said aspect has been considered by the learned first RSA No. 3388 of 2007 (2) Appellate Court. It has been noticed that the Gram Panchayat is recorded as owner of the suit property as per the revenue record. But the Gram Panchayat has not been impleaded as a party. The defendants are reflected in possession in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawaris prior to 1975-76, whereas the entries have undergone change in subsequent years but without any basis. Rapat Rozmancha does not reflect any basis of change of entry in the revenue record. It was found that the appellants have not produced any evidence as to how the entries in Khasra Girdawaris were changed so as to reflect the them to be in possession of the suit land. Since the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the suit property, therefore, the present suit for injunction without impleading the true owner has been rightly dismissed. Still further, the entries in Khasra Girdawaris were found to have been changed without any justifiable reasons. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 03-09-2009 ds