C.R.No.4520 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4520 of 2009 Date of Decision : 12.08.2009 Hazara Singh ...Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat Village Bharaunjian ...Respondents through its Sarpanch CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. H.S.Baidwan, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in revision against the order passed by the Courts below, whereby an application for restraining the defendants from blocking the alleged passage from khasra No.551, was dismissed. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for mandatory injunction for directing the defendants to remove construction raised in khasra No.551 in front of khasra Nos.552, 553 and 554 on the eastern side in order to enable the plaintiff to pass through khasra No.551. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had no passage to approach his land comprising in khasra Nos. 553, 554 and 554 and that for the last 50 years, he is using khasra No.551 owned by the Panchayat for access to his land. Thus, the plaintiff has acquired easementary right by prescription to use the passage. Admittedly, the revenue record does not record existence of any passage in khasra No.551. May be the plaintiff was using vacant land of khasra No.551 to approach his land, but that will not confer a C.R.No.4520 of 2009 2 right to use the land of the Panchayat. In the absence of any passage in the revenue record and any other prima facie evidence in support of the allegation of the petitioner that there was a passage over khasra No.551, the plaintiff cannot insist on passage. During the course of argument, another aspect that came out is that the petitioner-plaintiff has earlier filed a suit in the year 1998 claiming similar relief, but as per the petitioner since the respondents stopped raising construction, the petitioner withdrew the same. The fact remains that even in the year 1998, the right of passage claimed by the plaintiff was resisted by the Panchayat. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Courts below, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 12.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE