R.S.A.No.2553 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.2553 of 2006 Date of Decision : 08.07.2009 Krishan Kumar Jhamb ...Appellant Versus Municipal Committee, Gurgaon and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. B.R.Vohra, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate, for Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the defendants were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff or demolishing the construction raised, if any, forcibly, illegally and except in due course of law. The plaintiff sought decree for permanent injunction on the basis of his possession over 250 sq. yards of land. Though the learned trial Court has found that the appellant is a trespasser, but the learned First Appellate Court has returned a finding that the possession of the defendant is authorized possession and recognized by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gurgaon, in the year 1989. In view of the said fact, the learned First Appellate Court modified the judgment and decree and restrained the defendants from dispossession the plaintiff forcibly, R.S.A.No.2553 of 2006 2 illegally and except in due course of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that since the plaintiff has raised construction on the basis of representation of the Deputy Commissioner; Chief Minister; or the Local Government Minister, therefore, the respondents are estopped to dispossess the appellant in any manner in anticipation of conferment of ownership rights. The fact remains that the property in possession of the appellant has not been sold to him. Without purchase of the property no right accrues to the plaintiffs. The property of the State Government cannot be sold in the manner suggested by the appellant. None of the functionaries of the State Government have any right to promise the sale of the property of the State Government. Therefore, in the absence of any sale, the decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity. The finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court do not give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court. Dismissed. 08.07.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE