429

U

4m

Reclular Second Appeal

No348

of

2010 ^lOSMI

IN THE

HIGH

COURT

FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB

8 HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Date

of

Decision2

March

2011

1

C

Requiar

Second Appeal

Noa 1348

of

2010

106M10

0

C0

Shankar

Appellant

I

C5

VERSUS

I

Z

Krishna

Respondent

I

CORAM

HONBLE

MRJUSTICE

MOHINDER

PAL

Z

1

Whether

Reporters of

Local papers may be allowed

to

see

the

judgment

7

00

2

To be referred ^to the Reporters or

not 7

3

Whether

the judgmentshouId be reported ^ill the Digest⁷

7

Z

Presentl

Mr

Hiten Nehra

Advocate

tl

for the appeilant

MreSSe Gill Advocate

for the

respondent

MOHINDER

PAL

Jn

Plaintiff Shankar

is ^In second

appeal aggrieved against

the

judgmentand

decree

passed bythe

first Appellate^Court

whereby^the judgmentand

decree passed by the

trial Court

was

set aside and the suit

filed by the plaintifffor possession of the

Rani Anita

2012.11.19 14:27

True Scanned

Copy of the

Original

PHHC,

Chandigarh

JOYTI RANI

2016.03.28 15:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

430

1

2

Reqular

Second Apoeal

Nos 1348

of

2010 l08M10

suit

Iand

and compensation for

its suit Ianc

utiiization by the

was dismissed

I have heard

the

Iearned counsel for

the parties ^and

have gone throughthe records of the

case

During ^the pendency^of

this

appeal

the plaintif

tm

0

appellant ^filed

Civii Miscellaneous AppiicationNo 7910C

of

2010

0

for placing ^on

record

report preparedby Qanungo^on

42010

0

I

with regardto

Khasra Nos183

to

186 subjectnatter of dispute ^itl

C9

this

appeal alongwith

Aks Shijra Annexure A

preparedby ^the

I

Qanungo^on

42010

This applicationis

allowed

and

the

said

Z

documents

are taken on

record

Ct

The

piaintiffeappellant ^claimed

that

defendant

respondent Krishna

had forciblyoccupied the

suit Iand

measuring

3 Marlas formingpartof

Khasra No184

which ^was the ownershipof

Z

the plaintiff

as

a cosharer

The piaintiff placed

on

record

00

Jamabandi

for

the

year

199899

Exhibit PlJ

showing ^that

7

Z

the

plotin dispute^was

owned

by ^him along with

other ^coesharers

a

However

the

suit Iand admittedly is not

cultivable Iand ^as

it

IS

adjoining ^the

abadi

Iand of

the village

Column

No8

of the

Jamabandi

for

the

year

19981999

0ExhibitP lI a^{lso mentions}

this Iand

as

Gair

Mumkin

Abadi

The Khasra Girdwari placed

on

record by the plaintiffalso

shows

that the

Iand comprised ⁱⁿ

Khasra No164

is

no

more

cultivable Iand

Rather

itis

Gair

Mumkin

Abadj

In

this

case

the

had

examined

Sat

Pal Mattu

Office Qanungo ^as DW3

who ^had been

appointed

as

a

Local Commissioner by

the

Court of

Civil Judge

Rani Anita

2012.11.19 14:27

True Scanned

Copy of the

Original

PHHC,

Chandigarh

JOYTI RANI

2016.03.28 15:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

431

l

8m

Reclular Second Aooeal

Noe 1348

of

2010

OaMle

Senior Divisionl Phillaur

in a

suit titled

as

Swarna

Vse Krishnae

In that

case

Sat

Pal

Mattu

Office Qanungo

VV31

had

submitted his report

Exhibit

D3IA

in which

demarcation of

Khasra Nos

183

to

186

had been

made

Sat

Pal Mattu Office

e

Qanungo

DWI

1

in

his

said report Exhibit DW31A

made it

r

clear

that

the house occupied by

Krishna

iefendantl

was

0

situated within

Lal

Lakeer of the village and

was

beyond ^khasra

U

I

Nos183

to

186

Even

in the report preparedby Qanungo ^on

C5

462010

with regard to

Khasra Nos 183

to

186

which has been

taken

on

record

by allowing

Civil

Miscellaneous Application

Z

No7918C

of

2010

of

the

it is not mentioned

that

the

suit iand belongsto the plaintifopeliant

Even plaintiff

I

Shankar

PW 11 in his crossexamination done on

2 3 ²⁰⁰⁵

stated

Z

in

unequivocalterms

that

defendant

IS not in possession of

my

Iand rather she is

in iliegal possessionof panchayatIand

Itmay

01

also be

mentioned here

that

the

had

filed

7

Z

an

application before

the

triai Court

for

appointment of

some

Ll

revenue

OffiCia1 ^aS

Iocal commissioner

who

would

visit the spot

and would reportabout actual and factual positionof the suit property

after its

demarcation

Strangelyenough

the

plaintifvappellant

opposed the

appiication of

the

defendantrespondent

for

appointmentof

a Local Commissi