RSA No. 5074 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 5074 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.12.2011 Rohtash and another ........ Appellants Versus Panchayat Samiti Kanina and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocate for the appellants. JORA SINGH, J. CM No. 14816-C of 2011 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 33 days in filing the present appeal. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 33 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 5074 of 2011 Rohtash, Shiv Kumar and Ram Chander-appellants filed this Regular Second Appeal to challenge the judgment dated 11.8.2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Narnaul, vide which judgment and decree dated 24.10.2009, rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohindergarh was upheld. Main suit for permanent injunction was instituted by the plaintiffs-appellants on the allegation that they are in possession of RSA No. 5074 of 2011 -2- Kiosk and tin-shed over land shown in the site plan marked as ABCD, EFGH and JKMN. Site was taken on rent about 23-24 years ago. Defendants-respondents threatened to interfere and take possession forcibly. Allegation of the defendants-respondents was that suit land was not given on rent. Panchayat Samiti had given the land on Tehbajari. Licences of the appellants were cancelled. After the expiry of licences, possession of the appellants is illegal and unauthorized. Respondents had let out the suit property in favour of Zila Sainik Board vide resolution No. 8 dated 8.8.1994 and Zila Sainik Board has constructed its rest house. After going through the evidence on file, claim of the appellants was rejected by both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that appellants are in possession of the site in dispute marked as ABCD, EFGH and JKMN in the site plan for the last 23-24 years against payment of rent. Khokhas/kiosks were installed. Respondents cannot take possession forcibly except due course of law. I have carefully gone through the file and of the opinion that submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is not correct one. Site in dispute is within the complex of Sainik Rest House, Kanina. Allegation of the appellants is that property was taken on rent about 23- 24 years back but regarding payment of rent no receipt on the file. One of the appellant, namely, Rohtash in cross-examination admitted that suit land was given to them on Tehbajari. They have not deposited the rent for the last 4-5 years. DW-2 Dayanand stated that site was given on Tehbajari. RSA No. 5074 of 2011 -3- Licences of the appellants were cancelled. Receipts Ex. P-1 to Ex. 10 produced by the appellants are regarding payment of Tehbajari. Last rent receipt Ex. P-10 is of the year 1998. Allegation of the respondents is that licences of the appellants were cancelled in the year 1998. In case, appellants are in possession of the property in dispute against payment of rent after 1988 then they should have produced receipts regarding payment of rent. Suit was filed in the year 2003. In 2005 (3) RCR (Civil) 645, “Tarsem Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others” relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person in settled possession is entitled to protect his possession by way of injunction from the Court. He cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law even by true owner of the property. Even Government authorities cannot take the law in their own hands and dispossess a person in long settled possession without following the due course of law but in the present case appellants are not in well settled possession of the property in dispute. Site was given on Tehbajari. Licences of the appellants were cancelled. Appellants are not paying rent for the last 4-5 years. Last receipt regarding payment of Tehbajari is of the year 1998 whereas suit was instituted in the year 2003. Relief of injunction is discretionary and the discretion is to be exercised in favour of the party who comes to the Court with clean hands and with well settled possessio of the property in dispute. Evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by both the Courts' below. Evidence was not misread. Concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below. No substantial RSA No. 5074 of 2011 -4- question of law is involved. For the reasons recorded above, Regular Second Appeal without merits is dismissed. December 22, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE