RSA No.2164 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2164 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 15, 2011 Dharam Pal .....Appellant v. Haryana Urban Development Authority .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 9.12.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 27.4.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Faridabad, vide which suit filed by present appellant- plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for a decree for declaration that he is owner in possession of property in dispute and that the same is part of Bachat land of old khasra no.1261 and that the same is not part of khasra number acquired by the Government. On notice being issued, plea has been taken that the present appellant-plaintiff has raised illegal construction over the property in dispute, which was acquired by the State Government for development of RSA No.2164 of 2011(O&M) -2- Sector 20B, Faridabad, and requisite award No.15 dated 29.6.1998 was also announced and possession was also taken over by respondent-defendant, vide rapat No.567 dated 22.6.1998 and since then the respondent-defendant was continuing in possession of the same as owner and, however, in the garb of the present suit, appellant-plaintiff intends to grab the said land belonging to respondent-HUDA. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff. Appeal filed be appellant-plaintiff against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court, i.e., Additional District Judge, Faridabad. Plea of appellant-plaintiff is that earlier Khasra number of land in dispute was 1261 and, however, in the consolidation, the same was converted to khasra no.1427, whereas the house of the plaintiff is located in bachat property and that no number was allotted to the suit property. However, plea has been rightly rejected by learned Courts below as entire khasra No.1261 was acquired. It has been proved that khasra no.1261 was converted in khasra no.1427 in consolidation. Appellant-plaintiff has failed to show that his house is situated on the property, which is not part of khasra no.1427. He has also not placed on record relevant revenue documents to substantiate his plea that entire khasra no.1261 was not converted into new khasra no.1427. Moreover, he has admitted that he did not obtain any sanction from Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, for raising alleged construction. 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 learned Courts RSA No.2164 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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 misappreciation 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. 15.12.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge