Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hari Ram And Anr vs Sita Ram And Ors on 19 November, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-4683-2018 (O&M)
Reserved on : 12.11.2024
Pronounced on : 19.11.2024
HARI RAM AND ANOTHER ....Appellants
VERSUS
SITA RAM AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Ms. Anjali, Advocate for the appellants.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
plaintiff-appellants against the judgements and decrees dated 17.02.2016 and
16.04.2018 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
dismissing their suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.
2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellants averring that the
defendant-respondent No.1 had encroached upon a public rasta and chowk
and constructed a Chabutra which created an obstruction for the inhabitants
of the locality. The encroachment by the defendant-respondent No.1 was
liable to be demolished and he be restrained from raising any construction.
The defendant-respondent No.1 in his written statement denied that he was
encroaching upon any land of the defendant-respondent No.2. It was the
stand taken that the defendant-respondent No.1 was raising construction on
his own property. His grand-father Matadin had constructed the Chabutra
after passing of Resolution No.128 dated 12.06.1971 by the Municipal
Committee and he was raising construction only on the same portion. There
was no illegal encroachment on the property of defendant-respondent No.2
and defendant-respondent No.1 was only repairing the Chabutra and not
raising any fresh construction.
3. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
mandatory injunction as prayed for by him in the
plaint ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the
present suit ? OPD
3. Whether the present suit is not maintainable ? OPD
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred ?
OPD
5. Relief.
4. Vide judgement and decree dated 17.02.2016 the Trial Court
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants. The appeal of the plaintiff-
appellants was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgement
and decree dated 16.04.2018. Hence, the present regular second appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has contended that
both the Courts have erred in dismissing the suit. It is urged that it is amply
proven that the defendant-respondent No.1 is raising construction on public
property on which he had no right and therefore the suit ought to have been
decreed.
6. Heard counsel for the plaintiff-appellants.
7. In the present case the plaintiff-appellant has been unable to
prove that the construction raised by the defendant-respondent No.1 was on
land belonging to the defendant-respondent No.2. The extent of the alleged
illegal construction was also not proved. The First Appellate Court found
that "Perusal of the report Ex.P1 of local commissioner shows that
defendant no.1 is raising new Chabutra adjacent to old Chabutra. It is also
mentioned in it that on 2.7.2011 defendant had only constructed it with
bricks. On 6.7.2011 defendant has constructed a floor on the property of
Municipal Committee. But plaintiff has failed to prove that on how much
area defendant has illegally made the encroachment on the property of
defendant no.2. If there is no mention about the area encroached, then how
much area will be demolished. Further, in the said report Ex.P1 there is no
dimension or measurement regarding the chabutra constructed by the
defendant no.1. He has also not submitted the earlier portion and new
portion at the spot. There is no demarcation report on the file, which could
prove that the on how much portion the defendant no.1 has encroached.
Further more, the report of local commissioner is not a conclusive proof of
the fact. It is only supportive evidence, if case otherwise fully proved by oral
as well as documentary evidence". Even before this Court the learned
counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has not highlighted any evidence on the
record which would prove the extent of the alleged encroachment or any
demarcation report. In the absence of such reliable evidence, the findings
recorded by both the Courts cannot be faulted. No other point was argued.
8. In view of the above, no mistake or error of law or facts can be
found with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts. No
question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the
present case. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
19.11.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
