RSA No. 1505 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1505 of 2007 Phool Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Gram Panchayat Daulatpur ....Respondent RSA No. 1519 of 2007 Gurnam Singh and others ....Appellants VERSUS Gram Panchayat Daulatpur ....Respondent Decided on : 16-01-2009 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for the appellants MAHESH GROVER, J This order will dispose of two appeals bearing RSA Nos. 1505 of 2007 and 1519 of 2007. These are plaintiff's second appeals impugning judgments of the learned Trial Court dated 14.2.2004 and the first Appellate Court dated 17.1.2007. The appellants filed two separate suits for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering in the possession of the suit property and also from changing the entries in the revenue record as a consequential relief. A declaration was also sought regarding mutation no. RSA No. 1505 of 2007 2 487 sanctioned on 31.3.1992 to be declared as illegal, null and void. It was pleaded by the appellants that they were the recorded owners of the suit property from the very beginning but on the basis of letter dated 26.12.1989 issued by the Financial Commissioner a mutation no.487 has been wrongly entered. It deserves to be rectified. The respondents contested the suits and stated that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and on merits it was pleaded that the land belonged to the Gram Panchayat which had been alienating it out for farming but the appellants were in unauthorized possession of the suit property. The Trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD. 5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the true and material facts from this Court? OPD. 7. Relief. Upon appraisal of the evidence before it, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the land belonged to the Gram Panchayat and that the RSA No. 1505 of 2007 3 appellants were in unauthorized possession of the same. It was also concluded by the learned Trial court that the petition preferred by the respondent against the appellants under the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act had been determined in favour of the respondents and the appellants have been ordered to be evicted. In appeal, the findings were affirmed. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present appeals. Both the Courts below have returned a finding that the appellants are in unauthorized occupation of the property. The appellants have not been able to substantiate as to how they are in possession of the suit property. That apart in the proceedings initiated by the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands Act, the appellants have been ordered to be evicted which findings have been affirmed and the respondents are pursuing their execution to vacate the possession. In this view of the matter, when a concurrent findings of fact have been recorded and in the absence of any substantial question of law shown to have arisen in the present appeals and the same being devoid of any merit, they are hereby dismissed. January 16 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge