RSA No. 2030 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2030 of 2010 Date of Decision: 03.03.2011. Roshan and another .......Appellants Vs. Prem Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Mohd. Yusuf, Advocate for the appellants. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the site in dispute as the site was not reserved by the Consolidation Department for raising of a Masjid. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that they were original residents of village Saneta. The suit land had not been used for tethering cattle. There was a Mandir of Lord Shiva and of Basanta Mai and there was a Guga Mari near Mandir of Basanta Mai. The Mohammedan community had about 38 houses in the locality but had no religious place to worship. A tin shed had been constructed for gathering of Mohammedan community and for recital of Kuran Sharif. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were RSA No. 2030 of 2010 -2- framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 4. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 5.2.2008, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from raising further construction over the site in dispute except in due course of law. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal. The said judgment and decree was upheld by Additional District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali vide judgment and decree dated 10.9.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant No. 10 and legal representative of defendant No.2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, at the time of consolidation proceedings, no site was reserved for construction of Masjid. Land had been reserved for construction of a temple and Gurudwara Sahib. In these circumstances, the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have held that the defendants could not be allowed to encroach upon any part of the common land. RSA No. 2030 of 2010 -3- No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 03, 2011 Gurpreet