RSA No.4713 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4713 of 2010 Date of decision: September 16, 2011. Raj Kumari Bajaj ... Appellant(s) v. The Improvement Trust, Patiala ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Having lost in two rounds of litigation, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred the present regular second appeal. Appellant had instituted a suit for permanent injunction praying that the defendant – Improvement Trust, Patiala be restrained from interfering or causing interference in any manner whatsoever in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff through its servants and agents and they further should not forcibly and illegally dispossess the plaintiff from plot in dispute, detail and description of which was given in the plaint. It was pleaded that the plot in question was purchased by the plaintiff from Teja Singh vide a registered sale deed dated 8.11.1971. From the date of purchase of the plot, the plaintiff claimed that she is in possession of the same and this fact is also recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1991-92. It was stated that the possession of the plaintiff over the plot in dispute is actual, physical, RSA No.4713 of 2010 -: 2 :- peaceful and hostile and is in the knowledge of the public including the Improvement Trust. Furthermore, Improvement Trust is threatening to dispossess the plaintiff by way of force and no notice has been served upon her. According to the plaintiff, she had sought permission of the defendant Improvement Trust to deposit development charges, in writing. A day before filing of the suit, the defendant interfered in the possession of the plaintiff, however, they had not succeeded in their design due to intervention of the people of the locality. Suit filed earlier by the plaintiff was dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. Since the defendant was making efforts to cause interference in the possession of the plaintiff, therefore, cause of action arose and suit was filed. Upon issuance of notice, defendant caused appearance and filed written statement. The defendant had taken a preliminary objection that vide award dated 28.7.1978, passed in land acquisition proceedings, ownership of the plot in dispute vests in the Improvement Trust. Furthermore, the previous owner from whom the plaintiff had purchased the property had challenged the acquisition proceedings and the scheme developed by the defendant. A writ petition was filed by him against the defendant Improvement Trust which was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, he had filed an SLP which was also dismissed. Thereafter, possession of the property was acquired by the defendant Trust from Teja Singh, the person from whom plaintiff is stated to have purchased the property. It was stated that plaintiff has also filed objections and had also prayed for allotment of alternative plot. Further a sum of Rs.2277/- was assessed as the cost of the plot in acquisition proceedings. RSA No.4713 of 2010 -: 3 :- The trial court, after conclusion of the pleadings, formulated the following issues:- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to grant of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the plot, fully described in head note of the plaint?OPP 3. Whether the suit property has been acquired vide award dated 28.7.1992? OPD 4. Whether no legal and proper notice under Section 52 of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 98 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act has been served? OPD 5. Relief. After discussing the evidence led by the parties threadbare, the findings given by the trial court can be reproduced as under;- That it is not disputed that plot in dispute has been purchased by plaintiff from Teja Singh son of Sadhu Singh vide sale deed dated 8.11.1971; that notice under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 was published by the defendant Trust on 21.12.1973; acquisition proceedings have attained finality upto Supreme Court as per copy of order Ex.D12. Furthermore, Yadwinder Singh PW2 and Ram Niranjan Dass Bajaj PW3 have conceded that the land in dispute has been acquired by the defendant in the year 1978; that notice dated 21.12.1973 Ex.D5 was served upon the plaintiff under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 inviting objections within a period of 60 days, and objections indeed RSA No.4713 of 2010 -: 4 :- were filed by the plaintiff through her brother and she had also sought allotment of another plot. This fact was admitted by R.N. Bajaj, husband of the plaintiff, PW3. The Court further held that since legality and validity of acquisition proceedings, notification and award have been challenged by the plaintiff, she is not entitled to grant of permanent injunction. The findings returned by the trial court have been affirmed by the lower appellate court. In view of the findings returned by the two courts below, no interference is warranted in the present regular second appeal as during course of arguments, Counsel has failed to formulate any substantial question of law much less a substantial one for the consideration of this Court. Hence, present appeal is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] September 16, 2011. Judge kadyan