Dismissed

Gram Welfare Sabha v. Daljit Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Feb 2012RSA/3008/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal, the High Court dismissed the plea of the appellant seeking mandatory and permanent injunction for a parcel of land alleged to be a village pond. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of lower courts that the land was not reserved for common purposes and no such pond existed in the suit property.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree below were upheld.

Gram Welfare Sabha Vs Daljit Singh & Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

RSA No.3008 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.3008 of 2011 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: February 08, 2012

¶6

Gram Welfare Sabha, village Sadhpur

¶7

.......Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Daljit Singh and others

¶10

.......Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

¶12

Present: Ms.Jatinder Jit Kaur, Advocate for the appeollant.

¶13

<><><>

¶14

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

¶15

The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below.

¶16

The plaintiff-Gram Welfare Sabha claiming itself to be a registered body of the inhabitants of village Sadhpur, Tehsil and Distt. Sheheed Bhagat Singh Nagar instituted a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction stating that khasra Nos.28, 28/2,28/4 was allotted for abadi purpose during the consolidation proceedings. It was pleaded that there is a pond in khasra No.28 and since time immemorial the inhabitants of the village are using such pond for draining of the rain water as also their daily dirty water of their houses. It was stated that such pond vested in khasra No.28 is located towards Eastern side of the village and there was no other place for the purpose of drainage of water in such locality located on the Eastern side of the village. As such, it was pleaded that the property vested in khasra No.28 is reserved for common purposes of the inhabitants of the

¶17

RSA No.3008 of 2011 (O&M)

¶18

¶19

village and it could not be open for any inhabitant to change the nature of the property. It was further pleaded that khasra No.172 is adjoining to khasra No.28 and the defendants who have raised their house and haveli in khasra No.172 have begun to encroach upon the land which is part of khasra No.28 and have already raised a wall, gate and other construction by filling up earth in the wall. Resultantly, during the rainy season, the water does not flow into the pond and thereby gets collected in the streets of the village. Accordingly, the suit was filed.

¶20

The defendants contested the suit and filed a written statement taking a definite plea that the suit property does not form part of the village pond and, in fact, the defendants are in continuous possession of the suit property.

¶21

Upon hearing the respective counsel for the parties and upon scanning the evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffappellant preferred a civil appeal and vide impugned order dated 31.3.2011, the Additional District Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar has affirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

¶22

I have heard Ms.Jatinder Jit Kaur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at length.

¶23

I find that the present second appeal is wholly devoid of merit and must fail. Both the Courts have returned a concurrent finding to the effect that khasra No.28 has never been used for common purposes for the inhabitants of the village and there is no pond in the same. Exhibit P8 is the jamabandi duly proved on record which would reflect that khasra No.28,28/2 is Gair Mumkin abadi and khasra No.28/4 is Gair Mumkin Rasta. Khasra Nos.28/1 and 28/3 are shown to be under cultivation of

¶24

RSA No.3008 of 2011 (O&M)

¶25

¶26

Harbans Singh and Sadhu Singh sons of Inder Singh and the nature of the land is Chahi. Even the order of the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Nawanshahar, Exhibit D2, has been noticed in which it has been held that khasra No.28 had never been used for the common purposes by the villagers. Exhibit D8 is the jamabandi for the year 2000-01 duly proved on record as per which the pond, in fact, is situated in khasra No.30.

¶27

In view of such clear concurrent findings by both the Courts below which are based on due appreciation of evidence, the relief of mandatory and permanent injunction had been declined to the plaintiffappellant. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not been able to show that there has been any mis-appreciation or mis-reading of evidence to reflect perversity in the findings of the Courts below.

¶28

The present second appeal does not raise any question of law, much less a substantial question of law and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶29

Appeal dismissed.

¶30

FEBRUARY 08, 2012 SRM

¶31

( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JUDGE

¶32

Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No

Gram Welfare Sabha v. Daljit Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Welfare Sabha v. Daljit Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Haryana Vs Mohinder Singh

Beant Singh Vs Happy Singh Andors.

Jasvir Singh and Ors. Vs Gurpartap Singh

Naresh Kumar and Anr. Vs Rekha Rani and Ors.

Ishwar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jasbir Singh Rana Vs Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Bo. & Ors.