RSA No.3597 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3597 of 2006 Date of Decision:18.05.2009 Jas Pal Singh & Ors. ....appellants Versus Gram Panchayat, Kotian & anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Pritam Saini,Advocate for the appellants Mr.P.L.Singla, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Kamalpreet, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby their suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession and from forcibly evicting the plaintiffs from the land in dispute was dismissed. Plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit against the defendants pleading that they were in cultivating peaceful possession of the land in dispute for the last more than 30 years. Plaintiffs further alleged that defendant No.1 in connivance with defendant No.2 was bent upon to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land forcibly and illegally. Plaintiffs were not paying any batai or revenue to the Gram Panchayat of village Kotian. The plaintiffs were requesting the defendants not to interfere into their peaceful possession but they were adamant. On 23.10.1996, RSA No.3597 of 2006 2 defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land illegally and forcibly but due to timely intervention of the respectables of the village, defendants could not succeed. Hence this suit. In the written statement, defendant No.1 raised various preliminary objections. Possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was denied and it was asserted that defendant No.1 was owner in possession over the suit land. It was further pleaded that defendant No.2 had taken the land comprised in khasra No.466/416 measuring 5 bighas on lease which was duly executed by defendant No.1 on 30.06.1995 and since then defendant No.2 was in possession of the suit land as lessee. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession of the land in question for the last 20 years?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed for?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit?OPD 5. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit?OPD 6. Relief. Considering the arguments raised by counsel for the parties and evidence brought on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land and that defendant No.1 was the owner of the same and defendant No.2 was in possession as lessee. Accordingly, issues No.1 and 2 were decided against the plaintiffs. It was also held that the suit for injunction against the true owner was not maintainable and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in RSA No.3597 of 2006 3 view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. Consequent to the decision of the issues, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.11.2005 passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula, vide judgment and decree dated 27.05.2006. Still not satisfied, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that even as per the report of the Local Commissioner the appellants have been found to be in possession of the land in dispute and therefore since the appellants were in long settled possession of the property in dispute they have a right to protect their possession and the appellants cannot be evicted forcibly except in due course of law. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that no injunction can be issued against a true owner and therefore this appeal is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Undisputedly, the appellants are in unauthorized possession of the land in dispute title of which belongs to respondent No.1. It is not the case of the appellants that their possession over the suit land at any point of time was permissive as it is their specific case that they were not paying any batai or revenue etc.to the defendant/respondent No.1. Title of defendant/respondent No.1 is also not disputed by the appellants. Their sole contention before this Court is that they are in long settled possession of the land in dispute and therefore they have a right to protect the same against forcible dispossession. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants is misconceived. This Court in RSA No.3800 of 2004 titled as "Sukhwant Singh versus RSA No.3597 of 2006 4 Divisional Forest Officer and another" decided on 02.04.2009 after relying upon Premji Ratansey Shah and others vs.Union of India and others (1994)5 SCC 547, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others versus Assistant Charity Commissioner and others(2004)3 SCC 137, Prataprai N.Kothari vs.John Braganza (1999)4 SCC 403, Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and others vs.Pune Municipal Corporation and another (1995) 3 SCC 33, Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs.A.Viswam (Dead)by Lrs.(1996)8 SCC 259, Shiv Kumar Chadha vs.Municipal Corporation of Delhi(1993) 3 SCC 161 has held that no injunction can be granted in favour of a trespasser/unauthorized occupant and against a true owner. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 18.05.2009 neenu