IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 384 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 13, 2011. Smt. Kanta. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus State of Haryana and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat dismissing appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 06.01.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Panipat dismissing the suit filed by appellant-plaintiffs. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. RSA No.384 of 2011 Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiffs filed suit for a decree for declaration that Mauji Ram i.e. father of present appellant-plaintiff is owner in possession of the land in dispute with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in their possession and alternative decree for possession of suit land was also prayed. On notice being issued, written statement was filed by respondent-State by taking the plea that the land in dispute was already acquired by the Government and compensation had been paid to appellant-plaintiff and possession was also taken by the Government and that hence, respondent-Government is in possession of the same as owner. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, suit filed by present appellant-plaintiffs was dismissed. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat. Only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff is that no award has been placed on record by respondents-defendants and hence, it cannot be said that land was acquired and the compensation was paid to the present appellant-plaintiff. However, there is no force in this contention of learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. As per the revenue record respondent-State has been continuing in possession of the land in dispute as owner since the date of acquisition of the same. The land in dispute was acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 30.09.1970. Mutation was sanctioned on 08.06.1972. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 30.09.1970. There is also entry in 2 RSA No.384 of 2011 the mutation that `13,942.50 was paid to the present appellant-plaintiff as compensation. The date of award has been mentioned in the mutation as 08.10.1971. The possession of the land in dispute was taken by the State Government as is clear from the entries in the Jamabandi. Hence, merely on the ground that copy of award has not been filed, it cannot be said that award was not passed and compensation was not paid. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 13, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3