Gurmail Singh And Others vs Gram Panchayat on 29 September, 2008

R.S.A. No.2998 of 2008                                   -1-


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH
                   ****
                              R.S.A. No.2998 of 2008
                            Date of Decision:29.09.2008

Gurmail Singh and others
                                                         .....Appellants
         Vs.
Gram Panchayat, Village Rajia, Tehsil Barnala and others

                                                         .....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL

Present:-   Mr. B.S. Kathuria, Advocate for the appellants.
                         ****
HARBANS LAL, J.

The genesis of the case is that the plaintiffs had constructed

their houses about 40 years back in which they are residing since then. The

land which lay vacant in front of their houses is being used by them for

storing manure, fire woods etc. This vacant land is situated on the southern

side of their houses. The doors of their houses open in such vacant land.

The foundation in the vacant land has been laid in front of the house of

Nachattar Singh. Towards its southern side, there is a bricks paved street.

The plaintiffs reach this street after passing the vacant land. The under-

gound pipes have been laid. The defendant is bent upon to encroach upon

this vacant land forcibly and illegally. On these allegations, the suit has

been filed by Gurmail Singh and others against Gram Panchayat.

The Gram Panchayat in its written statement has alleged that

the disputed land belongs to it. The plaintiffs want to encroach upon the

same. The Gram Panchayat for the benefit of the villagers want to construct

pacca drains as well as passage by raising level of the street and has already

put the earth for such purpose and under the garb of this suit, they are
R.S.A. No.2998 of 2008 -2-

creating hindrance in the work of the Gram Panchayat. The disputed vacant

land is not in possession of the plaintiffs. The following issues are framed:-

1. Whether defendant is bent upon to encroach upon the

suit property and to demolish the metalled road? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of

action to file the present suit? OPD

3. Whether defendant is entitled to special costs? OPD

4. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected as per

objection No.1? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction as

prayed for? OPP

6. Relief.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining

the evidence on record, the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Barnala dismissed the suit vide his judgment and decree dated 6.10.2005.

Feeling aggrieved therewith, the plaintiffs went in appeal which has also

been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Barnala

vide his judgment and decree dated 3.6.2008. Feeling aggrieved therewith,

they have preferred this appeal.

I have heard Mr. B.S. Kathuria, Advocate, learned counsel for

the plaintiffs- appellants. Mr. Kathuria has urged with great force that it is

an admitted case of the parties that the plaintiffs/ appellants have

constructed their houses more than 40 years back and their doors open

towards the site in question, which is being used by them for keeping their

necessary articles, i.e., agriculture implements etc., and they are in

possession of the same. He further puts that the respondent- Gram
R.S.A. No.2998 of 2008 -3-

Panchayat has no right to block their way.

I am unable to agree with these submissions. A glance through

the judgments of both the Courts would reveal that the plaintiffs- appellants

have not produced and proved any document showing their ownership or

possession over the disputed site. If a person start tying his cattle or storing

his manure etc., on the land of other, as per law such person cannot be

deemed to be in possession thereof. As is well settled, the possession of a

vacant site vest in the owner unless proved to the contrary. Here in this

case, the Gram Panchayat- respondent being owner of the site in dispute, the

possession of such site vests in it. Consequently, no fault can be found with

the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below. More to the

point, no substantial question of law arises herein for determination by this

Court. Sequelly, this appeal is dismissed.

September 29, 2008                                        ( HARBANS LAL )
renu                                                           JUDGE

Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No