Regular Second Appeal No. 1273 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1273 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision: 3.2.2009 *** Amar Singh & Ors. .. Appellants VS. The Gram Panchayat Shah Jahanpur & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellants. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is plaintiffs' regular second appeal, who have been non- suited by the Courts below in a suit for permanent injunction filed by them seeking direction to respondent No.1 not to disturb their possession over khasra Nos. 947-948. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the paper-book carefully. The ownership of respondent No.1-Gram Panchayat over the said khasras is not in dispute. Both the Courts below on the basis of demarcation report prepared by the Local Commission, appointed in the case and other evidence available on record, concurrently held the plaintiffs in illegal occupation over the suit property comprised in khasra No.947 and refused to grant the relief to the plaintiffs-trespasser by restraining the true owner-Gram Panchayat from not dispossessing them from the land which was meant for “Charand”. The appellants failed to and still cannot derive any benefit from the fact that they were not the party to the ejectment proceedings initiated against respondent No.2 Sohan Lal, who is none-else but the real brother of appellants No.1 to 4, son of appellant No.5 and father of appellants No.6 and 7 and who was ordered to be ejected from the land Regular Second Appeal No. 1273 of 2008 2 comprised in khasra No.945 being an illegal occupant, vide order dated 3.7.1995 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Karnala, because it was the specific case of respondent No.1 that initially the appellants were residing somewhere else but lateron they started living in the premises constructed by respondent No.2 on the land, which was kept reserved for “Charand” and, as said above, their possession over the land comprised in Khasra No.947 was found unauthorized. Even the plaintiffs also failed to show in what capacity they came into the possession of the land belonging to respondent No.1 Gram Panchayat and thus, both the Courts below rightly refused to grant injunction to the appellants by observing that they cannot be allowed to perpetuate their wrongful possession. The appellants also cannot derive any benefit from the case law Jagir Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat village Mirajpur & Ors, 1989 PLJ 494, since the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Thus, while relying upon the case of Premji Ratansey Shah & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1995(1) CCC, page 1, it has rightly been held by the Court below that no injunction can be granted in favour of trespasser, against the true owner. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view than that of concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE February 3,2009 Jiten