Injunction--Encroachment--Trespasser who illegally encroached upon the Gram Panchayat land by using muscle power, money power and in collusion with State officials and even Gram Panchayat, are not entitled to any relief.

Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.:- Appellant-Man Singh, who was plaintiff before the trial Court, has filed the present appeal to challenge the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.09.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala, whereby, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and also the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present appeal are that appellant-plaintiff-Man Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering in the lawful and peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute measuring 5 kanals 10 marlas bearing khewat/khatauni No.596 min/653, khasra No.593 min, situated within the revenue estate of Patti Rangran, H.B. No.40, Ambala City, Tehsil and District Ambala. As per averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff has been in actual and physical possession of the land in dispute for the last more than 50 years. He had also constructed a katcha house over the land, in dispute and the same was being used for tethering his cattle and for storing certain articles. The defendants wanted to encroach upon the land, in dispute without any legal right or authority. However, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala. Said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was challenged before the Additional District Judge, Ambala which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 11.07.2013.

3. The appellant-plaintiff, after losing his case before the two Courts below, has filed the present appeal by raising various grounds.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the Courts below have not property appreciated the evidence available on record. It has not been taken into consideration by both the Courts below that the plaintiff had constructed a katcha house on the suit land for tethering his cattle and also for storing certain articles and has been possession of the same for the last about 35 years. Respondent-defendants wanted to encroach upon the land, without having any legal right or authority as their building is adjoining to the land, in dispute. Learned counsel also submits that the appeal may be allowed and judgments and decrees passed by both the Court below be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble the Apex Court in cases Rame Gowda (D) by LRs vs Mr. Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs and another 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 519 and Prataprai N. Kothari vs John Braganza 1999(2) RCJ 417, in support of his contentions.

6. Learned Sr. counsel for the respondents submits that the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence. The property in dispute is owned by State of Haryana and the same has been recorded as Gair Mumkin Sadak in possession of ‘Makbuja Mehkama PWD’ in the revenue record. Defendant no.3 is owner of land of adjacent Khasra Nos.607, 608/2 and 611, which are approachable through the passage. The plaintiff-appellant has no right to use that land and no house is in existence. Learned Sr. counsel further submits that this land has never been used, possessed or cultivated by the plaintiff. The plaintiff got changed its cultivation entries in his name, somewhere in the year 1987 and prior to that, the suit land was being recorded as Gair Mumkin Banjar Kadeem, which shows that it was never used for cultivation purposes. Suit land is owned by the State Government and the plaintiff-appellant cannot claim possession on the public property. At the end, learned senior counsel submits that no evidence has been brought on record to show as to how the plaintiff-appellant came into possession of the suit property as tenant and nowhere, it is mentioned that the plaintiff-appellant is tena