CR No.5942 of 2011 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5942 of 2011 Date of decision: September 26, 2011. Maya Devi ... Petitioner v. Gram Panchayat Chaharwala, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Whether the courts should obstruct development work taken up for public hygiene, is one of the issues, which is to be dealt with in the present revision petition. The petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant – Gram Panchayat, Chaharwala, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar from interfering in the peaceful actual physical possession of the petitioner-plaintiff and forcibly dispossessing her from bara/land marked by letters ABCD shown in green colour in the rough site plan. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC was also filed seeking ad-interim injunction. It was stated in the suit that the plaintiff-petitioner was owner in possession of bara and she had planted eucalyptus trees and placed gohara in the bara. According to the petitioner, there is a cemented phirni CR No.5942 of 2011 -: 2 :- adjoining the bara on the eastern side and the Gram Panchayat had dug a drain through the phirni for discharge of rainy water and now the Gram Panchayat for discharging daily used water and rainy water in the village pond, is taking drain through the plaintiff's bara. Thus, permanent injunction was sought. Upon issuance of the notice, defendant – Gram Panchayat caused appearance and took a specific stand that bara No.174 belong to the Gram Panchayat and it was further stated that in fact petitioner-plaintiff is in possession of bara bearing No.268 which is far away from the suit property. The trial court noticed that the respondent-defendant Gram Panchayat had taken a definite plea that the suit property is owned and possessed by them. To fortify their submission, Gram Panchayat relied upon Naksha Abadi and field book. The court declined the injunction to the petitioner on the ground that she has failed to prove her ownership and possession over the suit property. Aggrieved against the order of the trial court, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The lower appellate court has held that khasra No.174 in the revenue record is recorded as Shamlat Gohe Bataure Jatan and the construction of the nala/drain is being made in the public interest. Furthermore, the lower appellate court has held that except the site plan Annexure P-4, petitioner-plaintiff had failed to prove any document from which ownership or possession could be inferred. The following finding given by the trial court is required to be noticed:- “10. ... There is no document of ownership except the site plan placed on the file. The defendants also placed on the file the Naksha Abadi and the Field Book. The bara No.174 is used for CR No.5942 of 2011 -: 3 :- collecting Batauras etc. The plaintiff is in possession of a bara bearing No.268 and it is situated at a distant place away from the construction of the nala.” In the present revision petition, no legal argument has been raised to cause interference as the discretion has been validly exercised by both the courts below. Merely because a remedy of revision is available, it should not always be availed thereby burdening the Court with unnecessary litigation where there is explosion of the docket. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] September 26, 2011. Judge kadyan