Regular Second Appeal No.3202 of 2010 (O & M ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 04 , 2011. Regular Second Appeal No.3202 of 2010 (O & M ) Ghisa Ram ….Appellant Versus Smt. Badamo alias Bida Devi and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Plaintiff Ghisa Ram is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed. I have heard Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, appearing for the appellant and have gone through the impugned judgments. Regular Second Appeal No.3202 of 2010 (O & M ) The case of the plaintiff-appellant, in a nutshell, is that Hardwari Lal, predecessor-in-interest of defendants-respondents Nos. 1 and 2, moved an application with defendant-respondent No.3 i.e Municipal Committee, Mahendergarh, for raising construction of his house. The Municipal Committee passed Resolution No.141 dated 14.8.1985 and as per sanctioned site plan, Hardwari Lal raised construction of his house. According to the plaintiff-appellant, now defendants Nos. 1 and 2, in collusion with defendant No.3, were intending to make encroachment over the public property by raising construction beyond the sanctioned site plan and they (defendants Nos. 1 and 2) wanted to make encroachment over the road vesting in the Municipal Committee. It is significant to note here, the Municipal Committee (defendant No.3), in its written statement, averred that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the plaintiff had encroached upon the property of the Municipal Committee and due to this reason inconvenience was being caused to the inhabitants of the town. It was denied that the Municipal Committee was in collusion with defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It may also be mentioned here that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had also filed a counter claim. The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and recording their evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, but allowed the counter claim of defendants Nos. 1 and 2; thereby directing the plaintiff- appellant to remove the illegal encroachment made over public street and water channel in the Eastern side of his house to the extent of 17 x 4. The plaintiff went in appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court, after forming a question as to who out of the plaintiff and defendants Regular Second Appeal No.3202 of 2010 (O & M ) Nos. 1 and 2 had made encroachment over the land of the Municipal Committee (defendant No.3), held that none of the contesting parties can be held to have encroached upon any portion of the municipal land till the point where the pucca drain of the Municipal Committee starts and further that none of the parties can be allowed to encroach upon any portion of the pucca drain or on any portion falling towards the Eastern side thereof forming part of the public road. Accordingly, both the parties were restrained by the lower appellate Court from encroaching upon any portion of the pucca drain or on any portion falling towards the Eastern side thereof forming part and parcel of pucca road by way of raising construction or in any other manner whatsoever. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were, accordingly, modified by the lower appellate Court. Still dissatisfied, the plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court. Apparently, no fault can be found with the above findings recorded by the lower appellate Court whereby it has been held that no person can be allowed to encroach upon the public land. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, could not persuade me, by referring to any case law or by pointing out any material on record to show that the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court are not based on proper appreciation of evidence, to take a different view than the one taken by the said Court. In the result, there is no substance in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, hereby dismissed Dated: February 04, 2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE Regular Second Appeal No.3202 of 2010 (O & M )