Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.

1 This is plaintiff-s second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby their suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from using the land for cremation and constructing the shed in the suit land and further restraining it, not to allow the peoples to burn the dead bodies which creates pollution, in any manner, was dismissed.

2 As per the pleadings, the plaintiff-appellants are residents of Professor Colony, Yamuna Nagar. They are having their residential houses adjacent to the suit land which is shown as Marghat (cremation ground) in the revenue record. According to the appellants, the suit land has not been used for cremation of dead bodies for the last more than 25 years. They have built their houses near the land in dispute after getting the site plan sanctioned from the defendant-respondent. There is another cremation ground in HUDA. Jagadhri which the residents usually use for cremation of dead persons. It was further averred that the defendant with an ulterior motive and design wanted to construct the cremation shed in the suit land illegally and harass the appellants and to create pollution. The defendant was requested not to act illegally and a memorandum was also given to the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar but despite that the defendant remained adamant. So they were constrained to file the present suit. It was also prayed that the defendant be restrained from using the land for cremation and constructing the shed and further not to allow the people to burn the dead bodies of deceased persons and creating any kind of nuisance and pollution in the suit land in any manner what so ever.

3 Upon notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that the land in dispute is graveyard/Shamshan Bhumi and the same is being used by the residents as funeral site. It was further pleaded that the site in dispute was reserved as Shamshan Bhumi since the time of consolidation with the consent of proprietors of village Govindpuri and the plaintiffs and others raised construction of their houses knowing fully well that the site in question is reserved as Shamshan Bhumi. It was further submitted that there was also a cremation ground near Sector-17, HUDA but the site in question was reserved as cremation ground for village Govindpuri and cremation ground situated in Sector 17, HUDA was at a long distance. It was further pleaded that on the representation of residents of village Govindpuri, Member of Parliament had sanctioned a sum of Rs. 50,000/- out of Local Area Development Scheme for construction of sheds in the land in dispute and the process was going on for raising construction of that shed. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs had no right to raise any obstruction in the construction of shed on this cremation ground which is reserved for the purpose of cremation since the time of consolidation.

4 On appreciation of evidence, the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the land in dispute was reserved for crcmation ground. Earlier the aforesaid land was owned by the Panchayat Deh of village Govindpuri and it came to be owned by the respondent-Municipal Council. Yamuna Nagar as per mutation Ex.D2 but the nature of the property remained the same i.e. cremation ground. The Courts below also found that initially the houses were raised by the plaintiffs and other persons illegally and they did so at their own peril and they cannot compel the defendant to shift the cremation ground. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, it was held that in such circumstances the Civil Court cannot restrict the use of the land in question which was reserved for that very purpose since the time of consolidation and was duly recorded as such in the revenue record.

5 Not satisfied with the findings of the Courts below, the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal challenging