RSA No.2175 of 2006 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 2175 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.05.2011 Har Dutt Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Kulwant Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.Deepak Jindal, Deputy Advocate General Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Har Dutt Singh had filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to make the payment to him with regard to land measuring 12 marlas and mesne profits for a period of about ten years. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was owner of the land measuring 1 kanal 1 marla. Defendants had constructed a culvert on the suit land about ten years ago without his permission illegally and unlawfully. The plaintiff was entitled to get compensation of the land mentioned above. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the road in question was constructed in the year 1985-86. Plaintiff had never approached the defendants for compensation. The road in question was constructed after acquiring the land. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were RSA No.2175 of 2006 (O&M) 2 framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP 2.Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD 3.Whether the subject matter relates to law of acquisition?OPD 4.Relief.” The Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 2.8.2004 and held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim compensation only with regard to 2 marlas of land from the defendants. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 24.1.2005. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no substantial question of law arises in this case as the suit filed by the plaintiff challenging the decree suffered by the plaintiff in favour of Swaran Singh qua land owned by him including the suit land has been dismissed upto this Court. Hence, plaintiff can no longer claim interest in the suit property as the decree suffered by him qua the suit land in favour of Swaran Singh has been upheld upto this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge May 03, 2011 arya