IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Regular Second Appeal No. 87 of 2005. Date of Decision:- 26.9.2008. Birbal Singh through L.R ... Appellant Versus Police Chowki Sular Gharat & another ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present:- Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mr. Satish Bhanot, Sr. DAG Punjab. NAWAB SINGH. J. (ORAL) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by plaintiff against the judgments and decrees dated July 23, 2004 and October 6, 2004 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sunam and Additional District Judge, Sangrur, respectively, whereby suit for possession was dismissed. 2. The parties will be referred to in the body of this judgment as they were described in the plaint. 3. Birbal Singh-plaintiff filed suit for possession averring that he was owner in possession of 2 kanals 5 marlas land, comprised in khewat No.127 khatoni No.247 khasra No.22//3/1/2/2 situated in area village Dhandholi Khurd Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur vide jamabandi for the year 1997-98 (Annexure P-1). It was pleaded by him that In-charge, Police Post Sular Gharat, Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur encroached upon 1 kanal 2 marlas land of the plaintiff forcibly. Hence, the suit. 4. Defendants resisted the suit. It was pleaded that Police Post Sular Gharat was constructed in the year 1965 by Block Samiti, Sunam on the land bearing khasra No.6//23/2 measuring 1 kanal 12 marlas and was given on lease to the Police Department at the rate of Rs.370/- per month. It was also pleaded that defendants never encroached upon the land of the plaintiff. Regular Second Appeal No. 87 of 2005. (2) 5. On the contest of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the property in dispute? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession of the disputed property? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by provisions of order 9 rule 9 of CPC? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of service of notice under Section 80 CPC? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?OPD 7. Relief. 6. Under issue No.1, it was held that plaintiff was owner in possession of the land detailed in the plaint. Issue No.2 was decided against the plaintiff by holding that plaintiff was not entitled to the possession of the land because seat of Police Post Sular Gharat was in khasra No.6//23/2 and not in the land owned and possessed by the plaintiff. Issues No.3 to 6 were decided in favour of the defendants. Consequently, suit was dismissed. 7. Both the Courts below dismissed the suit on the short ground that Police Post was constructed on khasra No.6//23/2 in the year 1965 and not on the land of the plaintiff so, question of encroaching the land of the plaintiff by the Police Department did not arise, as alleged by him. 8. The only question that arises is as to whether Police officials of Police Post Sular Gharat encroached on any portion of the land of the plaintiff or not ? 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff assailed the Regular Second Appeal No. 87 of 2005. (3) findings of the Courts on the ground that Courts below did not consider the plea of the plaintiff that the Police officials encroached upon the portion of the land of the plaintiff and rather, observed that Police Post was not constructed in the land of the plaintiff. It was not the case of the plaintiff that Police Post was constructed in his land rather, it was pleaded by him that Police officials of Police Post encroached upon 1 kanal 2 marlas of land out of 2 kanals 5 marlas comprised in khasra No.22//3/1/2/2. The plaintiff has tendered in evidence report of Revenue official dated August 26, 2007 (Annexure P-4) before this Court, whereby it has been clearly mentioned that plaintiff is owner of land comprised in khasra No. 22/3/1/2/2 and Police officials of Police Post have encroached 1 kanal 2 marlas of land out of 2 kanals 5 marlas. There could not be any better evidence available to establish that Police Post encroached upon the land of the plaintiff, that is, 1 kanal 2 marlas. In view of above, answer to the question posed is that defendant No.1 encroached upon the land measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas of the plaintiff, of which they were not entitled to. 10. In view of what has been stated, findings of the Courts below on issue No.2 are set-aside. As a necessary corollary the plaintiff had locus-standi to file the suit and also had the cause of action. There was no technical flaw and the findings under issues No.3 to 6 are also liable to be and are hereby reversed. The appeal is accepted with costs throughout and the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff for possession of land in question measuring 1 kanal, 2 marlas comprised in khasra No. 22//3/1/2/2 . Defendant shall hand over the possession thereof to the plaintiff. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 26.9.2008. SN