Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shishpal Alias Shishpal Singh And Ors vs Gram Panchayat Village Harigarh Tehsil ... on 6 February, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018039
RSA-1961-2024 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1961-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.02.2025
SHISHPAL ALIAS SHISHPAL SINGH AND ORS .....Appellants
Vs.
GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE HARIGARH TEHSIL RAJPURA DISTRICT PATIALA
THR. ITS SARPANCH SANT SINGH AND ORS
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: Mr. Dhanvinder Singh Nigha, Advocate
for the appellants.
******
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
By way of present Regular Second Appeal, plain.ffs of the case have approached this Court against the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2024 passed by the First Appellate Court, affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2018 of the trial Court, whereby the suit of the plain.ffs-appellants seeking decree for permanent injunc.on regarding property in dispute, was dismissed.
2.1 Claiming to be owner in cul.va.ng possession of the suit land, plain.ffs alleged interference therein on the part of defendants. It was alleged that defendants wanted to make a drain in the suit land so as to pass rainy water of the Village and that of surrounding villages and in case they succeed in doing so, it will cause damage to the crop of the plain.ffs. It was further claimed that a kacha passage adjoining to the suit land leads towards the minor distributory and there was a big saifal near khasra No.333 & 334 for crossing the rainy water of the adjoining villages. There were two pullies in the said kacha passage, constructed by defendants No.1 and 2, which exist for the last more than 25 years back and that rainy water passes through the said pullies smoothly, but defendants want to remove those pullies with mala fide inten.on.
Page 1 of 4 Pages1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 16:53:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018039 RSA-1961-2024 (O&M) 2.2 Defendants contested the suit by alleging that plain.ffs themselves had blocked the pullies in ques.on by geAng installed a bore illegally and forcibly and by puAng the earth soil in front of the pullies, which were exis.ng for the last 65 years and that it is due to blockage of pullies that drainage of water towards the Miranpur drain through pullies had been stopped. It was claimed by the defendants that neither they have any concern with the land of the plain.ffs' nor they ever interfered in their possession and rather, the dispute is only regarding the pullies, which are exis.ng adjoining the khal, which is further adjacent to the canal.
2.3 Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par.es was taken on record. Trial Court dismissed the suit on 21.08.2018. Appellate court affirmed the findings in the appeal filed by plain.ffs.
3. Assailing the findings, it is contended by ld. Counsel that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the courts below.
4. Heard. The First Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal on 15.5.2024 observed as under:-
"14. At this juncture, it is per.nent to discuss cross-examina.on of PW1 Shishpal, who in his cross-examina.on has admiGed that in case, if there is obstruc.on in the drainage of water, it is responsibility of Gram Panchayat. He further admiGed that rainy water of village Harigarh from very beginning is flowing through his fields. He has stated that he has no objec.on if it con.nues to drain through his field. He admiGed that members of Gram Panchayat has come to request him regarding obstruc.on in the flow of rain water. He admiGed that there are two pipes installed in his fields and third pipe is at some distance under Pulli. He denied if Gram Panchayat filed any applica.on Annexure D1 or D2 against him. He stated that Gram Panchayat might have passed resolu.on. He has stated that he has no objec.on if earth is removed from the pipes to clear obstruc.on for ensuring free flow of water since the drainage is taking place in this manner for the last 60/70 years. He admiGed that site plan Ex.D1 is correct as per the spot. He admiGed that water drains ABCDEFGH and HIJK are correct as per spot. He further stated that pipes Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 Page 2 of 4 Pages 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 16:53:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018039 RSA-1961-2024 (O&M) are also shown correctly as per the spot. However, he denied that he ever obstructed flow of water from the pipes.
15. PW2 Dharam Singh in his cross-examina.on has admiGed pipes at points P1 to P3 to be correct and same are running from the last more than 40 years. He has admiGed that water from the drain used to be exited from the pipes to other side of drain. He has further stated that he has no objec.on if any earth which is obstruc.ng flow of water from the pipes is removed to ensure free flow of water. He further stated that these pipes are being used from the last 65 years for drainage of water.
16. PW3 Resham Lal in his cross-examina.on has stated that defendants never interfered into possession of plain.ffs nor tried to dispossess them. He has admiGed that drainage of rain water is being run through Pullies. He further stated that pipes are being used for drainage before .me of his birth may be 40/42 years back. However, he has feigned his ignorance about no.ce dated 20.6.2014 issued by BDPO to plain.ffs.
17. Although, photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 have not been proved by plain.ffs as per Indian Evidence Act, but photographs are admiGed by defendants to be of place of occurrence, but they have specifically deposed that photographs are old one and as of now, Pullies have been blocked by the plain.ffs. It appears that the plain.ffs under garb of present suit intend to stop co-villagers and Gram Panchayat from clearing the obstruc.ons created by the plain.ffs in Pullies with an inten.on to block drainage of rain water from the Pullies. From the cross-examina.on of plain.ffs witnesses, it is admiGed that there exists Pullies in the land of plain.ffs for more than 65 years from which rain water of village passes. Both PW1 Shishpal and PW2 Dharam Singh have stated that they have no objec.on if obstruc.on from the Pullies is removed to ensure free flow of rain water. Rather, plain.ff witness i.e PW3 Resham Lal has stated that defendants never interfered into land of plain.ffs and never tried to dispossess the plain.ffs. Thus, it is clear that inten.on of defendants is only to ensure free flow of water from the Pullies and nothing else to ensure safety of land of villagers. Thus, in view of above discussion, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by trial court on issues no.1 and 3 and same are affirmed accordingly."Page 3 of 4 Pages
3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 16:53:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018039 RSA-1961-2024 (O&M)
5. It is apparent from the aforesaid observa.ons made by the First Appellate Court, based upon the evidence produced on the file, that not only the plain.ffs but their own witnesses admiGed that rainy water of the Village Harigarh was flowing towards the fields of the plain.ffs since beginning and that two pipes had been installed in the fields of the plain.ffs and third pipe was installed at the liGle distance under the pulli. Applica.ons had also been moved by the Gram Panchayat against the plain.ffs. PW-1 even stated that he did not have any objec.on if earth is removed from the pipes to clear the obstruc.on for ensuring free flow of water since the drainage is taking place in this manner for the last 60/70 years. PW-1 had also admiGed the correctness of the site plan (Ex-D1). The observa.ons made by the First Appellate Court further reveal that under the garb of the present suit, plain.ffs intended to stop the co-villagers and Gram Panchayat from clearing the obstruc.ons created by them in the pullies with an inten.on to block drainage of the rain water from the pullies. The existence of pullies in the land of the plain.ffs is admiGed for the last more than 65 years, through which the rain water of village passes was proved on record.
6 In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments. As such, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
06.02.2025 JUDGE
Pry
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
Page 4 of 4 Pages
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 16:53:29 :::