Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.@mdashThis is plaintiff''s second appeal. A suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaratory decree to the effect
that order dated 18.9.1977 passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer-exercising the powers of Collector, Ropar ordering
ejectment of the plaintiff from the suit land and order dated 24.8.2001 passed by the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Punjab Government, Rural
Development and Panchayat, Punjab were illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction and had no binding effect on him was dismissed by the trial
Court. It was claimed by the plaintiff that he was in possession of the land in dispute and even prior to January 26, 1950, the said land was in
possession of his predecessors. On behalf of the defendant, it was claimed that the defendant-Gram Panchayat was the owner of the suit property
and the plaintiff was in illegal possession of the same and the suit property had been kept reserved for common purposes of the village.
2. The rival contentions gave rise to various issues. Trial Court on appreciation of evidence held that after passing of the ejectment order against
the plaintiff by the Collector Ropar, he had got no locus standi to file the present suit for declaration challenging the said order. It was observed
that a person who is in illegal possession of a property had no right to protect his possession by resorting to his remedy before the Civil Court. The
lower appellate Court affirmed these findings and went ahead in observing that the plaintiff had failed to prove on record that the land in dispute
was a bachat land. The appeal was consequently dismissed. Application filed by the plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for placing on
record the revenue record before the lower appellate Court was also dismissed as the same was found to be devoid of any merit.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the findings
recorded by the Courts below are wrong and the evidence led on his behalf was not properly appreciated. On the other hand, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the defendant-Gram Panchayat contended that the property is vested with the Gram Panchayat and ejectment order Exhibit
D-1 was legal and valid and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.
4. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence oral as well as documentary
and do not call for interference by this Court in second appeal. While rejecting the plea of the plaintiff that suit property is bachat land, it was rightly
observed by the Courts below that question of title was to be decided by the Collector u/s 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)
Act, 1961. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant in the said findings. This Court refrains from re-
appreciating evidence in second appeal unless it is pointed out by any of the parties that there is mis-reading of evidence or any material evidence
has been ignored from consideration or the findings returned are palpably wrong and against law. Nothing was shown by the counsel for the
appellants in this regard warranting interference in this regular second appeal. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in
this appeal for the consideration of this Court. The appeal is consequently dismissed.
