Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahla Singh @ Mehal Singh And ... vs Rajinderpal Singh And Others on 25 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
107
RSA-2953-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25.07.2022
Mahla Singh @ Mehal Singh and others .....Appellants
Versus
Rajinderpal Singh and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Mr. Jagdish Rai, Advocate as Legal Aid Counsel
for the appellants.
Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate
for the caveators/respondents.
****
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
The suit for possession of land measuring 7K-6M in
Khasra No.63//13/1min North/4-0, 14/2/2/3-6, with area as under :
East: 18 Karam; West: 18 Karam; North 40 Karam; Sourth:40 Karam,
out of land comprised in Khewat/Khata No.268/265, Khatoni No.341,
Khasra No.63//12/2/4-0, 63//13/1/6-15, 63//14/2/2/3-6, 63//18/8-0,
63//22/2/4-0, 63//23/1/6-0 situated in the revenue estate of village
Booh, Tehsil and District Kapurthala (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit
land') along with suit for permanent injunction instituted by the
plaintiffs to restrain the defendants, their agents, servants etc. was
decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated
30.01.2018. The appeal preferred by the defendants to impugn the
judgment and decree of the trial Court was thereafter dismissed by the
first appellate Court vide order dated 15.03.2019. The defendants are
now before this Court in Regular Second Appeal.
Parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their
1 of 5
RSA-2953-2019 (O&M) -2-
original positions in the suit.
The facts in brief as pleaded by the plaintiffs while filing
the suit in question may be noticed as thus. The plaintiffs claimed that
the suit land was owned by them and their names stood duly reflected
in the revenue records. During their absence, defendant No.1 wrongly
and illegally encroached upon some part of the suit land comprised in
Khasra No.63//13/1min North/4-0, 14/2/2/3-6, kitte 2 total area 07
kanals 06 marlas. As soon as they learnt about illegal encroachment by
the defendants, the plaintiffs requested them to vacate their land,
however, the defendants asked the plaintiffs to get a demarcation
carried out and in case it was found that some encroachment had indeed
taken place, they would vacate it. An application was then moved to
Tehsildar Kapurthala by plaintiff No.1 for conducting the demarcation.
On 07.05.2015, demarcation was conducted by Kanungo and Halqa
Patwari in the presence of both the parties and respectables of the
village. During demarcation it was revealed that the land measuring
7K-6M in Khasra No.63//12/2/4-0, 63//13/1/6-15, 63//14/2/2/3-6,
63//18/8-0, 63//22/2/4-0, 63//23/1/6-0 had been wrongly and illegally
encroached upon by the defendants. Resultantly, the plaintiffs again
requested the defendants to vacate the encroached land but in vain.
Hence, the suit in question was filed by the plaintiffs. In their written
statement, the defendants denied having encroached upon the land of
the plaintiffs and rather asserted that no application as claimed by
plaintiff No.1, for demarcation of land in question, was moved by him
much less demarcated as per the provisions of law by the Kanungo and
Halqa Patwari. During trial, plaintiff Rajinderpal Singh examined
2 of 5
RSA-2953-2019 (O&M) -3-
Tarlochan Singh as PW2, Lakhwinder Singh Kanungo Circle,
Fattudhinga as PW3, Gopal Singh, Junior Assistant as PW4 besides
examining himself as PW1. The plaintiffs also proved on record Ex.P1
i.e. copy of jamabandi, Ex.P2 i.e. demarcation report dated 07.05.2015,
Ex.P4/A i.e. certified copy of application, Ex.P4/B i.e. certified copy of
Naksha Tawafat and Ex.PX i.e. attested copy of intimation memo
(Parcha Itlah). The defendants examined Bagicha Singh as DW1, Mahla
Singh as DW2, Shinder Singh Sarpanch as DW3 and Kashmir Singh
Narmbardar as DW4. Upon consideration of the matter in issue and the
evidence led, both the Courts concurrently concluded that it stood
proved that on an application moved by the plaintiffs, PW3 Lakhwinder
Singh, Kanungo and PW2 Tarlochan Singh had visited the spot and
prepared demarcation report (Ex.P2) and which in turn had been
submitted by him to the Tehsildar concerned. As per the demarcation
report (Ex.P2) it stood proved that the land of the plaintiffs had been
encroached upon. Not only this, it was also proved on record that
Notice (Ex.PX) was served qua the demarcation proceedings upon the
defendants since it bore the signatures of defendants Mahla Singh,
Bagicha Singh and left thumb impression of Kashmir Singh
Nambardar.
Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has
vehemently argued that the disputed land was in fact forest land being
in cultivating possession of the defendants. The defendants had been in
possession of the suit land since the year 1970. However, the Courts
below failed to appreciate this fact while passing the impugned
judgment and decree. It was further argued that the Courts below also
3 of 5
RSA-2953-2019 (O&M) -4-
failed to appreciate that the demarcation was not conducted as per the
provisions of law but it was a paper exercise carried out by the revenue
officials in connivance with the plaintiffs. He, thus, prayed for setting
aside of the impugned judgement and decree.
I have heard learned counsel and perused the material on
record.
The submissions made by learned counsel are devoid of
any merit and deserve to be rejected outright. The factum of an
application (Ex.P4/A) having been made by the plaintiffs to Tehsildar
for carrying out demarcation stands duly proved. Not only this, it is also
a matter of record that the defendants were duly informed about the
date and time of the demarcation proceedings which finds corroboration
from the fact that their respective signatures stand duly reflected in
Ex.PX i.e Parcha Itlah. It also needs to be noticed here that the
demarcation was carried out in the presence of both the parties and the
defendants never raised or filed any objections to the demarcation
report (Ex.P2) nor did they challenge it before any authority. In case as
argued by learned counsel that the land was in the cultivating
possession of the defendants since the year 1970, the least the
defendants could have done was to lead some evidence before the trial
Court in support of the same, however, admittedly no evidence was led
either in the said regard or even to rebut Ex.P2 i.e. the demarcation
report which as already observed stood duly proved on record by PW3
Lakhwinder Singh.
Upon being pointedly asked, learned counsel for the
appellants/defendants miserably failed to refer to anything on record to
4 of 5
RSA-2953-2019 (O&M) -5-
show that the conclusions arrived at by both the Courts below were
either contrary to the record or suffered from any material illegality. No
ground is thus made out to interfere with the concurrent findings
recorded by both the Courts below. The appeal, being devoid of merit,
is accordingly dismissed.
25.07.2022 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Vinay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
