J 1 48 n f 0 e1 Civil Revision No2416 of 2011 lOSMIe IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNOAB S HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH eee Date of Decisionl April 08 2011 1 Civil Revision Noe2416 of 2011 lO8M1 0 0 BhagSingh Petitioner 0 r VERSUS C5 I Gram Panchayat Respondent Z r CORAM HONBLE MRJSTICE MOHINDER PAL I C 1a Whether Reportersof Local papers may be allowed to see Z the judgment 7 2 To be referred to the Reportersor not7 3e Whether the judgmentshould be reported in the Digest7 CO r4 17 Z Presentl MrMK Singla Advocate tl for the petitioner MOHINDER PAL Je The challengeIrl the present revlSion petitionis to the order passed by the Iower appeliateCourt whereby the restraint order passed by the trial Court in favour of the and against the defendantm respondentGram Panchayat in an applicationfiled by the under Gupta Suruchi 2013.01.19 11: 53 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 49 r 0 a2a Civil Revision Noe2416 of 2011 lOSM10 Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure or short the Code in a suit filed by him for permanentinjunction was set asidel thereby dismissing the application of the under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code j CL The Gram Panchayatintended to Iay undergroundpipes 0 and to construct drain for discharge of dirty water through the 0 K area of the Gram Panchayate The plaintifoetitioner claimed 40 that the disputed area was his property and the defendant I Gram Panchayat had no right to Iay undergroundpipes and to Z constructdrain in that area As per case of the defendanteGram Panchayat a I concrete street had been passing from infront of the house of 0 the plaintiffepetitionerand the other and the drain Z passing under the said street through underground pipelines 00 er betweenthe house of plaintiff etitioner BhagSingh and Ajit Singh 17 Z further merged into main drain The drain in question had 0 been constructed by VillageGram Panchayat as per natural flow of water and the same was runningwithout any interruption The plaintiffappellant encroached upon some portionof vacant panchayatIand within the Lal Lakir Iyingoppositeto his residential house by constructinga boundarywall and a room upon some portion of drain some time back In the order dated 12032010 passed by the District Developmentand PanchayatOfficer FatehgarhSahib in proceedings under Section 7 of PunjabVillage Common Lands Gupta Suruchi 2013.01.19 11: 53 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SO 0 e3 Civil Revision Noe2416 of 2011 l08Mle Regulation Act 1961 for eviction of plaintiffepetitionerBhag Singh from the Iand of Gram Panchayat and for removal of encroachment made by the it has been observed by the District Development a nd PanchayatOfficer that the plaintiffpetitioner had encroached upon the property in dispute C2 which belongedto the Gram PanchayateIt has been further observed 0 in the said order that the propertyin disputeis partof VillagePond 0 E and the plaintiffepetitioner had encroached over the drain of Gram C5 Panchaya I The trial Court had passedthe restraint order against Z the Gram Panchayat by relying on the report of the Local Q Commissioner that there was no pipe in front of the house of the plaintifoetitioner It is the case of the Gram Panchayat that the plaintiffepetitioner had filled the drain passing through Z his house which had earlier been constructed by the Panchayatas per D its Resolution Since the drain had been filled up by the plaintiff 7 Z petitioner of course no drain could be seen by the Local ll Commissioner while visitingthe disputed site At the same tlme it has been observed by the Local Commissioner in his report that there was obstruction of dirty water in front of the house of the petitioner as there were no means of discharge of water It clearlyshows that there had been blockage of flow of water which used to flow earlier throughthe drain which had been filled up by the petitioner Since the disputed area has been encroached upon by the plaintifoetitioner as has been observed by the District Developmentand PanchayatOfficer in his order the Gupta Suruchi 2013.01.19 11: 53 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 51 1 r 0 e4e Civil Revision Noe2416 of 2011 OSM1 petitionerdid not have a primafacie case in his favour nor balance of convenience Iied in his favour The Iower appellateCourt was under the circumstances justifledin reversingthe order passed by the trial court in an applicationOled by the plaintifoetitionerunder Order 39 RuIes 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code m Resultantly I do not see any ground which may 0 warrant interference by this Court in the impugnedorder passed 0 t by the Iower appellateCourt This revisIOIl IS accordinglyhereby 9 dismissed beingwithout any merlt I f Z 6 l PALI April 08 2011 OUDGE r ak I C3 Z 7 Z r Gupta Suruchi 2013.01.19 11: 53 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document