RSA No.3916 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3916 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.5.2010 Atma Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Gram Panchayat, village Rattoke ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking possession of the land in dispute illegally and forcibly, was dismissed. As per the averments made in the suit, the appellant is owner in exclusive possession of Khata No.17/307// and killa No.59//1/1/5-8, 59//5/1/3-8 being co-sharer and the defendant-respondent had no concern with the aforesaid land. The defendant wanted to construct a road in the land in dispute forcibly and openly threatened the plaintiff. Thus, the necessity arose to file the present suit. Upon notice, the defendant-appellant appeared and filed written statement stating that the road was being constructed after demarcation by the concerned officials which was done in the presence of the plaintiff and he was not having any concern with the land of the road and was creating obstruction in the development of village due to party faction and the suit was filed by concealing material facts. Prayer for RSA No.3916 of 2009 (O&M) 2 dismissal of the suit was made. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether defendants are encroaching upon any land of the plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for? OPP 4. Relief.” Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence on record dismissed the suit of the appellant holding that there was no evidence on record to support his assertion. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the Courts below, the plaintiff has approached this Court by filing this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees. After going through the same, I find that the case of the appellant is based upon report of the Local Commissioner according to which the area of road is shifted towards the side of the plaintiff. The Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the appellant has failed to prove his case. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it stands proved from the demarcation report of the Local Commissioner that the road has been constructed by encroaching upon the land of the plaintiff-appellant. However, I find that the report of the Local Commissioner has not been accepted by the Courts below on the ground that the same was against the RSA No.3916 of 2009 (O&M) 3 instructions for measurement of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, which are mandatory. No substantial question of law arises. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. May 12, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE RSA No.3916 of 2009 (O&M) 4 However, the said demarcation report was not relied upon by the Courts below holding that the same was against the instructions of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, regarding demarcation of area.