RSA No.4488 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4488 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 18.1.2010 Hardev Singh and others ......Appellant(s) Versus Punjab State through District Collector, Distt Mansa and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.13443-C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 7 days in filing this appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No.13444-C of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.4488 of 2009 This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby their suit for declaration to the effect that they are owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of adverse possession has been declined by the Courts below. As per the averments made in the plaint, the respondent-State has been recorded as owner of the suit land and the plaintiffs since their forefathers are in actual physical possession of the suit land since 1971 which is open, peaceful, without any interruption and hostile to the respondents and since the defendants were bent upon to dispossess them from the suit land forcibly and illegally, the present suit was filed. RSA No.4488 of 2009(O&M) 2 The suit was defended on various pleas including that the plea of adverse possession was not available to the plaintiffs and thus, the suit itself was not maintainable. The Courts below dismissed the suit as well as appeal filed by the appellants. The argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants before this Court is that in fact the present suit has been filed by the appellants in defence to the proceedings taken against them by the respondents under the provisions of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, and therefore, the suit of the appellants was maintainable and the Courts below have erred at law while non-suiting the appellants on this ground and thus, the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal: “Whether the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are perverse and erroneous.” I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. This Court in Bhim Singh and others v. Zile Singh and others 2006 (3) RCR Civil 97, has held that a suit for declaration by a plaintiff on the plea of adverse possession is not maintainable. The aforesaid judgment has also been followed by this Court in RSA No.3909 of 2009 decided on 17.3.2009 State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar. Moreover, on the basis of the evidence, the findings have been recorded by the Courts below that the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land cannot be held to be peaceful and uninterrupted for the last 30 years as the respondent-Authorities have already initiated the process of law for their eviction under the provisions of Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act and eviction orders have been passed against them. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal. RSA No.4488 of 2009(O&M) 3 No question of law, much less substantial question of law, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. January 18, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE