JUDGMENT : Nidhi Gupta, J. The defendant is in second appeal before this Court against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against the appellant, has been decreed. 2. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that both the Ld. Courts below overlooked the fact that there is no document apart from the site plan on record to prove the ownership of the respondent/plaintiff over the suit property. It is further submitted that both the Ld. Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiff/respondent has encroached upon the public property. 3. It is further submitted that both the Ld. Courts below have relied upon the statement of PW-2 Paramjit Singh where it was suggested to the plaintiff’s witness that the plaintiff/respondent was illegally in possession of the suit property, whereas, both the Ld. Courts below failed to appreciate this fact that the plaintiff/respondent was neither the lessee, tenant, owner and co-sharer in possession over the alleged suit property of its previous owner nor the present owner. 4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file including the Lower Court Record in great detail. 6. The brief facts as narrated in the plaint are that previously forefathers of the plaintiff/respondent were in possession of the land in dispute. Thereafter, plaintiff/respondent came in possession over the property mentioned in the letters ABCD. Plaintiff/respondent has filled earth in the property in dispute and sown trees, two Tallis, Khazoor, Amrood and other trees were standing in the suit property. Plaintiff/respondent has also placed dung cakes and ballan and he was also tethering their cattles in the plot in dispute. Plaintiff/respondent has also made boundary wall at some portion at point -B and installed barbed wire in the Northern Side and therefore, appellant/defendant has no concern/connection with the plot in dispute and the plaintiff/defendant is now intending and threatening to dig the earth and to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/respondent over the suit property. Plaintiff/respondent has also made boundary wall at some portion at point -B and installed barbed wire in the Northern Side and therefore, appellant/defendant has no concern/connection with the plot in dispute and the plaintiff/defendant is now intending and threatening to dig the earth and to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/respondent over the suit property. Hence, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction restraining the appellant/defendant their servants and agents, from digging earth and from interfering into the peaceful possession of the respondent in a plot as mentioned in letters ABCD shown in the site plan by way of illegally, forcibly or in any other manner. 7. Upon notice, appellant/defendant appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability, want of locus-standi and cause of action, estopped by his own act and conduct, concealment of facts, clean hands, bad for misjoinder or non-joinder of necessary party. It has been further averred that appellant/defendant is owner and in possession of the suit property which is Gair Mumkin Tobha/pond and also averred that previously the suit property was in ownership and in possession of its previous owner and on coming of existence of Nagar Panchayat the said property got vested in the Nagar Panchayat. Since then, the appellant/defendant is the owner and in possession over the suit property. Even a resolution No.110 dated 03.07.2009 to clean the Tobha/pond was passed by the appellant. It has been further averred that plaintiff/respondent was neither the lessee, tenant, owner and co-sharer in possession over the alleged suit property of its previous owner nor the present owner. 8. Plaintiff filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the plaint. 9. On the basis of pleadings following issues were framed vide Order dated 2.9.2011: - “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the present suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form? OPD 3. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of prior notice under Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file this suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of prior notice under Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file this suit? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the court and has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties? OPD - Relief” 10. Issues No.2 and 3 were decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant; and issues No.4 to 7 were not pressed. 11. The Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 29.01.2015 decreed the suit and held that the possession of the plaintiff/respondent has been proved from the cross-examination of PW-2 Paramjit Singh. The relevant part is in para 9 of the judgment (at page 16 of the paperbook), is reproduced as under:- “Now coming to the question of possession of plaintiff over the suit property. Although the defendant, in its written statement has denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property but in a total contrast to the averments in the written statement, defendant admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property during the course of evidence. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW2 Paramjit Singh, shows that defendant himself suggested that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property although illegal. Defendant further affirmed the possession of plaintiff by himself suggesting this witness that they are using the suit property since long. By virtue of this admission, no further and better proof with regard to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property is required in the present case.” 12. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the respondent/plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. However, during cross-examination of PW2/Paramjit Singh, the appellant himself had suggested that the respondent/defendant was in possession of the suit property albeit illegal possession. As such it has been correctly held by the learned trial Court that “...It has come on record convincingly that the plaintiff being inhabitant of the village is in possession of the suit property. However, during cross-examination of PW2/Paramjit Singh, the appellant himself had suggested that the respondent/defendant was in possession of the suit property albeit illegal possession. As such it has been correctly held by the learned trial Court that “...It has come on record convincingly that the plaintiff being inhabitant of the village is in possession of the suit property. Here it is also worthwhile to note that even though the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property may be unauthorised but that does not give any legal right to the defendant to dispossess the plaintiff or interfere in his possession over the suit property illegally and forcibly, except in due course of law. Resultantly on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the case of the plaintiff stands duly proved and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for...”. Thus, while passing the decree the Ld. Civil Judge held that even though the possession of the plaintiff/respondent over the suit property may be unauthorized but that does not give any legal right to the defendant/appellant to dispossess the plaintiff/respondent or interfere in his possession over the suit property illegally and forcibly except in due course of law. 13. It is established position in law that possession of land within abadi deh/lal lakeer follows ownership. It is also no longer res integra that abadi deh does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It was the case of the appellant before the learned trial Court that the suit land is shamlat deh. However, even admittedly as per the defendant witnesses/witnesses produced by the appellant, nature of suit property was proved to be abadi deh lying within lal lakeer. In this regard, reference may be made to cross-examination of DW1 Sachin Gaba, Clerk, Nagar Panchayat, Khamano and DW2 Manoj Kumar. 14. Thereafter, the appeal filed by appellant/defendant was dismissed by the Court of Ld. Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2019 and the findings of the Ld. Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib are in para-No.10 as under:- “10....The cross-examination of DW Sachin Gabha clerk in the Nagar Panchayat Khamanon is quite relevant to the context. 14. Thereafter, the appeal filed by appellant/defendant was dismissed by the Court of Ld. Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2019 and the findings of the Ld. Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib are in para-No.10 as under:- “10....The cross-examination of DW Sachin Gabha clerk in the Nagar Panchayat Khamanon is quite relevant to the context. He admitted the fact that the suit property was located within the red line of the village and the Nagar Panchayat did have any proof regarding ownership of the same...The defendant Nagar Panchayat had failed to place on record any document to show that the property in question vested in the gram panchayat. Yet the Gram Panchayat would be at liberty to establish its title over the suit property if at all had seeks eviction of plaintiff from suit property by adopting due course of law. No doubt the defendant in the written statement denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property but when we go through the entire cross-examination conducted upon PW Paramjit Singh it reflects that it was suggested to the witness that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property illegally and unauthorizedly. The possession of the plaintiff over the suit property was established by way of cogent evidence to which there was no sufficient rebuttal. Even if according to the defendant the plaintiff was in unauthorized and illegal possession of the suit property the law is very well settled that a person in illegal possession cannot be dispossessed except by adopting due course of law. This court finds no justifiable reason to dis-agree with the findings of the Id. lower court where it was precisely held that the defendant would be at liberty to take the recourse of law seeking eviction of the plaintiff form the suit property in accordance with law.” 15. Before parting it may be pointed out that the present appeal is of the year 2019 and notice has not yet been issued in the matter; and the same has been adjourned at request of Id. counsel for the appellant on 16.03.2020, 09.11.2023, 02.07.2024, 22.08.2024 and 17.09.2024. 16. In view of the above present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.