RSA No.942 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.942 of 2007 Date of decision: September 27, 2011. Niranjan Lal ... Appellant(s) v. Haryana State through Collector, Hissar & Others ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Sunil Panwar, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): The plaintiff having failed in two rounds of litigation, has preferred the present regular second appeal. Briefly stated, the plaintiff had instituted a suit praying for the grant of permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 3 from demolishing the kacha platform marked as ABKJ and HIJK in front of the properties of the plaintiff and proforma defendants situated near Hisar octroi Barwala road Hansi. It was further prayed that defendants be directed to pay damages for demolishing kacha platform during the pendency of the proceedings. It was further stated in the plaint that Government of Haryana has initiated proceedings regarding acquisition of the land, under platform in dispute, and the land adjacent to GT road comprised in khasra No.478/23 RSA No.942 of 2007 -: 2 :- and 499/1 which was initially owned by plaintiff No.1 and his brothers, but the same had not completed. His brother Parswarth Lal had submitted a site plan which was initially not allowed but subsequently the same was allowed as a result of conspiracy and Parswarth Lal and Sanjeev Kumar raised pucca platform in front of their properties. On 10.8.1999, Ram Singh, SE (P), PWD B&R, Hansi came to the spot and threatened to demolish the pucca platform. This Court need not to notice further pleadings as it is admitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the alleged platform has been demolished by the respondents. On appearance, defendants filed written statement and a definite stand was taken by them that the plaintiff has encroached upon the land which was owned by the State of Haryana. The trial court had framed the issues on 23.10.2000. Thereafter, additional issues were framed. The trial court held that whether the disputed land is part of khasra No.478/23 owned and possessed by the plaintiff or not, could only be proved after the same was demarcated from the kacha berm of the metalled road. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to get the disputed area demarcated. The plaintiff having failed to do so, was, thus, not entitled to the relief. The court further held that the case of the plaintiff is that no kacha berm is lying between the metalled road and the property. The court found this version to be false. It will be pertinent to reproduce the following portion of the judgment of the trial court:- “14. Being plaintiff, it was incumbent upon them to get the land demarcated so as to prove their case by way of leading cogent and positive evidence. Having not done the needful it cannot RSA No.942 of 2007 -: 3 :- be presumed that land under disputed platform is part of land comprised in khasra No.478/23 owned by plaintiffs. The major portion of arguments raised on behalf of learned counsel for plaintiff pertained to litigation of one Parsawarth Lal. The plaintiff has also placed a number of documents regarding that litigation, however, the same are neither being considered nor discussed in this judgment because it is a settled proposition of law that plaintiff has to stand on his own legs. The mere fact that one Parsawarth Lal is doing a wrongful act which has not been objected to by defendants No.1 to 3, the same does not amount to issuing licence to plaintiff to make encroachment on the land, which does not belong to them. 15. In view of my above the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they along with performa defendants are owner in possession of land beneath the disputed chabutra ABKJ and HIJK in the site plan annexed. Since above mentioned land did not belong to plaintiffs, they had no right to construct platform there over. In such a situation, if defendants No.1 to 3 have demolished the disputed platform, the same cannot be amount to wrongful act for which plaintiffs are entitled for damages as prayed for. Even the plaintiffs are not entitled to the injunction as prayed for. Consequently, all the issues are decided against the plaintiffs.” Aggrieved against the judgment of the trial court, the appellant had filed an appeal. The lower appellate court held that since the plaintiff is only relying upon the documents which his brothers had proved in another RSA No.942 of 2007 -: 4 :- litigation and plaintiff has not proved his ownership over the disputed property. At this stage, Counsel for the appellant has stated that plaintiff has been non-suited primarily on the ground that he failed to prove whether disputed portion of land was a part of khasra No.478/23 which is owned and possessed by plaintiff. Counsel has further submitted that it is travesty of justice that qua the adjoining shop, which is in possession of his brothers, in another round of litigation, it is held to be private property and whereas qua the platform in front of the shop of the plaintiff, for his failure to prove demarcation, the platform has been demolished. A duty was cast upon the plaintiff to prove that he is not an encroacher upon the land in dispute and the same vested upon in him. The appellant-plaintiff, by leading cogent evidence, failed to prove that the land on which platform was built, vested in him. Furthermore, in a suit for permanent injunction once the platform has been demolished, no relief can be granted to the appellant, especially when the plaintiff failed to prove the documents pertaining to the litigation initiated by his brother in a separate case on the record of this case. Taking totality of circumstances into consideration, the concurrent findings returned by the Court below suffer from no infirmity and hence, no interference is warranted, especially when there is no question of law much less a substantial one for consideration of this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] September 27, 2011. Judge kadyan/rps