RSA No.1553 of 2010 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1553 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 21.04.2010 Gram Panchayat Kasni ..Appellant Versus Karan Singh and Others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) . . . This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for injunction and for restraining the appellant from interfering in their possession over the land in dispute. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the respondents were proved to have been in possession as Dohlidars. Both the Courts have also noticed that earlier petitions filed by the appellant under the Village Common Lands Act (as applicable to Haryana) for evicting the respondents had been rejected on merits by the Authorities thereunder by holding that the Gram Panchayat would have to file a civil suit for declaring that the Dohlidari tenure of the respondents had come to an end and thereby seek possession. Both the Courts also noticed the plea of the respondents that it was after the cutting of the Hari Crop in June, 2005 that the appellant and his accomplices armed with lathis and jallies came to the land in dispute and threatened the respondents from trying to RSA No.1553 of 2010 (O & M) ::2:: cultivate the land. The case of the appellant as pleaded was that though it admitted the judgments of the Authorities under the Village Common Lands Act yet the Panchayat had taken the possession of the land in dispute many years prior thereto and had been auctioning the same. However, strangely no record prior to June, 2005 was placed on file and the plea taken was that the previous record has been misplaced. It was in these circumstances that the Courts below held that the respondents were in possession on the date of filing of the suit and protected their possession with a direction to the Panchayat to handover the vacant possession in case the Panchayat-appellant had taken over the possession in the meantime. The following questions have been proposed:- (i) Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are perverse, being based on misreading and misconstruing the evidence on record ? (ii) Whether the suit for permanent injunction was maintainable when the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land on the date of filing of the suit and whether a decree for possession could be passed and the findings that the plaintiffs were dispossessed during the pendency of the suit are based on no evidence ? (iii) Admittedly, the appellant Gram Panchayat is the owner of the suit property and the plaintiffs were/are not in possession, whether a decree for possession could be passed by the courts below in favour of the plaintiffs, who have no title in the suit property ? (iv) Whether as per the settled law a decree for RSA No.1553 of 2010 (O & M) ::3:: injunction could be passed against a true owner when plaintiffs have no title in the suit property ? (v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the judgment and decree of the courts below are sustainable in law being based on misreading of evidence on record ? Learned counsel has vehemently argued question Nos. (ii), (iii), (iv) which are overlapping questions. In my opinion, the finding that the respondents were in possession on the date of filing of suit is a pure finding of fact. Learned counsel has poined out that portion of the cross-examination of the respondent-plaintiffs wherein it has been stated that “it is correct that the land in dispute was auctioned out for Rs.52,000/- in May, 2005”, to canvass that this is an admission that the respondents were not in possession on the date of the filing of the suit. I am afraiSd that I cannot agree with this assertion that the act of auctioning out the property by the appellant is a proof of dispossession of the respondents. In these circumstances, learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. The conclusion of the Courts below that the appellant was trying to take a short-cut instead of filing a suit as envisaged by the orders of the Authorities under the Village Common Lands Act has not been shown to be illegal. Questions No.(i) and (v)are general questions, which recede into the background when questions No. (ii), (iii) and (iv) are answered against the appellant. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that the decision of this case would have no bearing on any case which the Gram Panchayat may file for RSA No.1553 of 2010 (O & M) ::4:: seeking possession from the respondents in accordance with law. Since the main appeal has been decided, the Stay Application as well as Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 21, 2010 sukhpreet