RSA No. 974 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Tarsem Singh Dilbag Singh & Ors. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- DEEPAK GUPTA, J. the Courts below, inasmuch as suit for permanent injunction regarding the property in dispute filed by him 18.08.2015, and the appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 01.12.2021. 2. the last about 30 years, over which he had constructed his house installed a tube without having any right or title therein. He accordingly prayed for decree of permanent injunction. 3. No.5 Manga Singh, who is in possession of the suit land, having taken the same on lease from Gram Panchayat. It was further submitted that plaintiff Tarsem Singh and his father Sadhu Singh had earlier been evicted from the suit land vide order dated 07.06.2006 of t DDPO, Kapurthala and possession was taken by Gram Panchayat on 24.06.2009 vide rapat No.499. Thereafter, the suit land was given on lease to defendant No.5 Manga Singh. Defendants further submitted that RSA No. 974 of 2022 Page N: 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Tarsem Singh Versus Dilbag Singh & Ors. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Tanvir S. Attariwala, Advocate for the appellant. *** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Plaintiff is before this Court against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit for permanent injunction regarding the property in dispute filed by him was dismissed by the trial Court on 18.08.2015, and the appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on According to the plaintiff, he was in possession of suit land for the last about 30 years, over which he had constructed his house installed a tube-well, and that defendants were trying to dispossess him without having any right or title therein. He accordingly prayed for decree of permanent injunction. Defendants opposed the suit by submitting that it is defendant a Singh, who is in possession of the suit land, having taken the same on lease from Gram Panchayat. It was further submitted that plaintiff Tarsem Singh and his father Sadhu Singh had earlier been evicted from the suit land vide order dated 07.06.2006 of the Collector Panchayat Land DDPO, Kapurthala and possession was taken by Gram Panchayat on 24.06.2009 vide rapat No.499. Thereafter, the suit land was given on lease to defendant No.5 Manga Singh. Defendants further submitted that IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 974 of 2022(O&M) Date of decision: 23.09.2025 …Appellant …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Tanvir S. Attariwala, Advocate Plaintiff is before this Court against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit for permanent injunction regarding the was dismissed by the trial Court on 18.08.2015, and the appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on According to the plaintiff, he was in possession of suit land for the last about 30 years, over which he had constructed his house and well, and that defendants were trying to dispossess him without having any right or title therein. He accordingly prayed for decree Defendants opposed the suit by submitting that it is defendant a Singh, who is in possession of the suit land, having taken the same on lease from Gram Panchayat. It was further submitted that plaintiff Tarsem Singh and his father Sadhu Singh had earlier been evicted from the he Collector Panchayat Land-cum- DDPO, Kapurthala and possession was taken by Gram Panchayat on 24.06.2009 vide rapat No.499. Thereafter, the suit land was given on lease to defendant No.5 Manga Singh. Defendants further submitted that RSA No. 974 of 2022(O&M) Date of decision: 23.09.2025 Appellant Respondents Plaintiff is before this Court against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit for permanent injunction regarding the was dismissed by the trial Court on 18.08.2015, and the appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on According to the plaintiff, he was in possession of suit land for and well, and that defendants were trying to dispossess him without having any right or title therein. He accordingly prayed for decree Defendants opposed the suit by submitting that it is defendant a Singh, who is in possession of the suit land, having taken the same on lease from Gram Panchayat. It was further submitted that plaintiff Tarsem Singh and his father Sadhu Singh had earlier been evicted from the - DDPO, Kapurthala and possession was taken by Gram Panchayat on 24.06.2009 vide rapat No.499. Thereafter, the suit land was given on lease to defendant No.5 Manga Singh. Defendants further submitted that JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.24 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 974 of 2022 plaintiff and his fat DDPO, but the same was dismissed. The plaintiff then approached this Court by filing writ petition, which was also dismissed. Prayer was accordingly made for dismissal of the suit. 4. dismissed the suit and Appellate Court affirmed the findings. 5. evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below, but he was at loss of words, when asked to explain as to whether his earlier writ petition filed before this Court bearing CWP No. 8999 of 2009, titled as Tarsem Singh Vs. Director Rural Development and Panchayat & Ors., dismissed on 31.10.2011 and that Court. 6. record, which has been duly discussed by the Courts below, it has been found that plaintiff was evicted from the suit land along with his father way back in 2006 and the order was maintained upto the Appellate Authority. 7. Court does not find any ground to disturb the concurrent findings, which are found to be based on proper appreciatio merits. Dismissed. 23.09.2025 Jiten RSA No. 974 of 2022 Page N: 2 of 2 plaintiff and his father had filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of DDPO, but the same was dismissed. The plaintiff then approached this Court by filing writ petition, which was also dismissed. Prayer was accordingly made for dismissal of the suit. After framing issues and taking evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit and Appellate Court affirmed the findings. Although, learned counsel for the appellant argued that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below, ut he was at loss of words, when asked to explain as to whether his earlier writ petition filed before this Court bearing CWP No. 8999 of 2009, titled as Tarsem Singh Vs. Director Rural Development and Panchayat & Ors., dismissed on 31.10.2011 and that he had concealed this fact from the Apart from this, on the basis of documentary evidence on record, which has been duly discussed by the Courts below, it has been found that plaintiff was evicted from the suit land along with his father way ack in 2006 and the order was maintained upto the Appellate Authority. After perusing the judgments passed by the Courts below, this Court does not find any ground to disturb the concurrent findings, which are found to be based on proper appreciatio merits. Dismissed. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable her had filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of DDPO, but the same was dismissed. The plaintiff then approached this Court by filing writ petition, which was also dismissed. Prayer was After framing issues and taking evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit and Appellate Court affirmed the findings. Although, learned counsel for the appellant argued that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below, ut he was at loss of words, when asked to explain as to whether his earlier writ petition filed before this Court bearing CWP No. 8999 of 2009, titled as Tarsem Singh Vs. Director Rural Development and Panchayat & Ors., was he had concealed this fact from the Apart from this, on the basis of documentary evidence on record, which has been duly discussed by the Courts below, it has been found that plaintiff was evicted from the suit land along with his father way ack in 2006 and the order was maintained upto the Appellate Authority. After perusing the judgments passed by the Courts below, this Court does not find any ground to disturb the concurrent findings, which are found to be based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. No (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No her had filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of DDPO, but the same was dismissed. The plaintiff then approached this Court by filing writ petition, which was also dismissed. Prayer was After framing issues and taking evidence, the trial Court Although, learned counsel for the appellant argued that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below, ut he was at loss of words, when asked to explain as to whether his earlier writ petition filed before this Court bearing CWP No. 8999 of 2009, titled as was he had concealed this fact from the Apart from this, on the basis of documentary evidence on record, which has been duly discussed by the Courts below, it has been found that plaintiff was evicted from the suit land along with his father way After perusing the judgments passed by the Courts below, this Court does not find any ground to disturb the concurrent findings, which n of evidence on record. No JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.24 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document