High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Gram Panchayat, Lohina v. Son Pal & Ors - RSA-3666-2005  RD-P&H 889 (17 February 2006)
R.S.A. No. 3666 of 2005 (O&M)
Date of Decision: February 7, 2006
Gram Panchayat, Lohina
Son Pal and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. B.S. Tewatia, Advocate
for the appellant.
VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
For the reasons stated in the applications the delay in re-filing and filing the appeal is condoned.
The defendant Gram Panchayat having concurrently lost before both the Courts below has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant Gram Panchayat from demolishing their house which were situated in the land in question.
It was claimed by them that the plaintiffs are permanent residents of the village and are co-sharers in the Shamlat Deh of the village. The plaintiffs and R.S.A. No. 3666 of 2005 (O&M) 
their ancestors had invested huge amount and raised construction of Pacca houses and for generations they have lived in the aforesaid houses.
The suit was contested by the defendant Gram Panchayat. It was claimed by the Gram Panchayat that it was wanting to give better facilities to the villagers for use of common/ Shamlat Land under the management, control and directions of the Gram Panchayat. The plaintiffs had raised constructions by encroaching upon the Shamlat land.
The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence on the record found that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property and had raised construction for the last many years and were residing in the houses. It was also noticed that no evidence had been led by the Gram Panchayat to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiffs. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed.
The appeal filed by the defendant Gram Panchayat also failed before the learned first Appellate Court.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the two Courts below suffer from any error or are contrary to the record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
February 7, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.