Satnam Singh vs Kabal Singh And Others on 22 July, 2009

R.S.A.No.2511 of 2007                                        1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH
                              R.S.A.No.2511 of 2007
                              Date of Decision : 22.7.2009
Satnam Singh                                       ...Appellant

                              Versus

Kabal Singh and others                             ...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant.
          Mr. B.P.S.Virk, Advocate, for the respondents.

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the

judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for

declaration that the plot of land marked as ABCEDF is owned and

possessed by the plaintiff, was dismissed.

It is the case of the plaintiff that the aforesaid plot of land is

situated in abadi deh and the plaintiff is owner in possession of the same.

It is also come on record that initially the defendants filed a suit for

permanent injunction, which was dismissed as withdrawn. In

proceedings under Section 133 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an

order was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Samana, to remove

the encroachment by the plaintiff, which is now part of plot marked as

ABCDEF. An application was filed by the plaintiff for setting aside the

said order, which was dismissed. The revision filed by the plaintiff

against the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, was also dismissed on

10.4.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. before this Court, which was dismissed on 25.11.2003. It was,

however, observed that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the findings, the
R.S.A.No.2511 of 2007 2

petitioner has remedy of establishing his rights in appropriate

proceedings. It is thereafter the plaintiff filed the present suit by way of

claiming title over the suit property.

Learned trial Court has found that Gram Panchayat Deh is the

owner of the said land to the extent of 5/24 share of the property bearing

khasra No.92 measuring 27 Kanals 12 Marlas. The remaining 19/24

share belongs to the proprietors. However, the plaintiff has not led any

evidence to prove that he is proprietor of the village. Thus, the claim of

the plaintiff that he is owner of the suit property was negated. However,

in respect of his claim of possession, it was found that the defendants

admitted plaintiff to be in possession of the suit property, but due process

for removal of the encroachment has been initiated by the Sub Divisional

Magistrate, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction as well.

Such order has been affirmed in appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that

since the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, therefore, the

plaintiff is entitled to injunction. However, the finding recorded is that

though he is in possession, but he is being dispossessed in pursuance of

the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate since the plaintiff has

encroached upon street i.e. Public land. Such finding of fact has been

recorded by the Courts below on the appreciation of evidence.

In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question

of law arises for consideration by this Court in second appeal.

Dismissed.

22.7.2009                                         (HEMANT GUPTA)
Vimal                                                 JUDGE