Labh Singh vs State of Puniab and others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff Labh Singh having non-suited by courts below has approached this Court by way of instant second appeal.

Case of the plaintiff-appellant is that he is in possession of the suit plot since the time of his forefathers. He had constructed boundary wall thereof. He also started raising other construction. He had spent about one lac rupees on building material and labour. Howev,er, defendant no. 2 Tehsildar objected to the construction being raised by the plaintiff. The construction already raised was demolished. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants (State of Punjab and its Officers) from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit plot and from raising any construction thereon. Plaintiff also sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants to reconstruct the boundary wall, two rooms, kitchen, verandah and bath room which stood constructed upto plinth level which were illegally and forcibly demolished by the defendants. Plaintiff also sought recovery of one lac rupees as liquidated damages.

Defendants resisted the suit by alleging that suit plot is part of khasra no. 1528 (16-15) belonging to Provincial Government i.e. State of. Punjab. Plaintiff started raising illegal construction in the suit plot to grab the same and the said construction was demolished by the defendants., Plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit plot. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.2006 dismissed the plaintiffs spit. First appeal preferred by plaintiff has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 12.5.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff appellant did not claim ownership over the suit plot but claimed only possession thereon and the trial court erroneously observed that the plaintiff claimed himself to be owner of the suit plot. It was also contended that by order of Collector, plaintiff and other similarly situated persons were allowed to remain in occupation of their respective plots till allotment of alternative site. It was contended that plaintiff is in possession of the suit plot since the time of his ancestors.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same cannot be accepted. Defendants have specifically pleaded that suit plot is part of khasra no. 1528. This fact was admitted by suggesting to -Tehsildar Shiv Kumar, DWI in cross-examination that suit plot was at point ''A'' in field map Ex. D2. The said point falls in khasra no. 1528. It is, thus, admitted that suit plot is part of khasra no. 1528. According to the revenue record produced in evidence, Provincial Government is'' owner in possession of khasra no. 1528 including the suit plot. Consequently, plaintiffs oral evidence is not sufficient to depict that he is in possession of the suit plot since long time. Presumption-of correctness attached to jacaranda has not been rebutted by the plaintiff by leading any cogent evidence. It is significant to notice that the plaintiffs building plan was sanctioned by Muncipal Council in the year 1990 but no construction had been raised till before the filing of the suit in the year 2004 except that raising of construction was allegedly started in December, 2003 only i.e. about a month before filing of suit as per plaintiffs own version. Thus, it cannot be said that plaintiff is in possession of the suit plot since time of his ancestors and has been residing there. since long. On the other hand, plaintiff by raising fresh construction wanted'' to grab the suit plot. Defendants acted timely and frustrated the said attempt of the plaintiff. Consequently, suit of the plaintiff has been rightly dismissed by both the courts below.

As regards alleged order passed by the Collector, there is no pleading regarding the same and therefore, defendants had no opportunity to respond to the same. Moreover, the said order is not connected with the suit plot. Consequently, the contention based on said order cannot be accepted.

Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below to non-suit the plaintiff is justified by the evidence on record. Said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. The appeal is meritless and is accordingly dismissed.