IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No.745 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 5th November, 2008
Major Singh
... Appellant
Versus
Balwant Singh and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the appellant.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Major Singh had filed a suit for permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from house/ haweli.
Premises/ suit land has been detailed and described in the heading of the
plaint. Plaintiff had set out a case that the construction was made by his
fore-fathers and he is in possession of the disputed premises and
defendants are bent upon to interfere in his possession.
Notice was issued to the respondent-defendants. They caused
their appearance. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is not the owner in
possession of the suit property rather the same is shamlat land and same
belongs to village Chaudhary Wala and the Gram Panchayat of the village
is in peaceful possession of the property. It was also stated that Gram
Panchayat had made an application regarding illegal acts of the plaintiff
and a compromise was arrived at on 11th March, 2000. The compromise
was not honoured. Therefore, Gram Panchayat submitted an application to
DDPO, Amritsar through BDPO on 8th May, 2000. After obtaining
permission from the Deputy Commissioner, DDPO, with the help of SSP,
Tarn Taran, Gram Panchayat took the possession of the disputed property
on 5th July, 2000. It was further pleaded that appellant-plaintiff was not in
Regular Second Appeal No.745 of 2008 2
possession of the suit land. After completion of the pleadings, issues were
drawn by the trial Court.
Plaintiff, during the cross-examination, admitted that on 5th
July, 2000, possession was taken with the police help by the Gram
Panchayat. It was also admitted in the cross-examination by the plaintiff
that land is shamlat land.
The Gram Panchayat had not been made party to the suit.
The trial Court further gave a finding that plaintiff has never remained in
possession of the land in dispute, rather an attempt has been made by him
to illegally occupy the possession, a few days prior to filing of the suit and
DDPO, with the help of police, has taken the possession. The plaintiff has
no right, title or interest in the property in question.
Taking into consideration the evidence of the defendants
along with the photographs and evidence of DW-1 Amarjit Singh and DW-2
Rashpal Singh, it was also held that there was no haweli built on the land,
but there was a temporary structure.
Aggrieved against the order of the trial Court, appellant had
filed an appeal before the appellate Court below. The findings of the
learned trial Court have been concurred by the appellate Court below.
Two courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact
that appellant was not in possession of the suit property and the suit land
belongs to the Gram Panchayat. In view of the concurrent findings of fact
recorded by two courts below, counsel for the appellant has failed to
formulate any substantial question of law, which could detain the attention
of this Court.
Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is
dismissed.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
November 05, 2008
rps