Regular Second Appeal No. 3829 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No. 3829 of 2010 Date of Decision:September 28, 2010 Daljit Singh and another ---Appellants versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Ms. Sangeeta Debey, Advocate, for the appellants *** GURDEV SINGH, J. The unsuccessful plaintiffs-appellants, Daljit Singh and Dharampal, have preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.7.2010 passed by District Judge, Sonepat, vide which he dismissed their appeal, preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16.4.2010 passed by Civil Judge(Senior Division), Sonepat, vide which he dismissed their suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants- respondents from demolishing the shops and building comprised in Khasra Nos. 8425/7384/4693/1 Min(3-14) and 8425/ 7384/4693/3 Min(2-11) total land measuring 6 Bighas 5 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of Sonepat Patti Musalmanan, Tehsil and District Sonepat. The plaintiffs averred in the plaint that they are co-sharers in possession of the land in dispute and two shops, two rooms and one stair case have been constructed therein. They have also got electric connection in this construction and shops are assessed to house tax. Their possession is Regular Second Appeal No. 3829 of 2010 -2- not in excess of their share. The suit of the plaintiffs was contested by the defendants. They came up with the plea that this land already stood acquired by defendant No. 2 through Land Acquisition Collector and after that acquisition, the plaintiffs have no right or interest therein and they cannot seek any such relief of permanent injunction. They have no cause of action to file the suit and the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial court:- 1. Whether the defendants can be restrained from demolishing the shops and building of the plaintiffs as alleged?OPP 2. Whether the Civil Court has not jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Relief. To prove their case plaintiffs examined Anil PW-2 and Mahboob PW-3. Daljit Singh plaintiff entered the witness box as PW-1. The plaintiffs also tendered in evidence a number of documents. On the other hand, the defendants examined Kehar Singh, Patwari, DW-1 and also produced documentary evidence consisting of the Notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, statement of the assessment compensation and the award passed regarding the payment of the compensation. After going through the evidence so produced on the record and hearing learned counsel for the plaintiffs and G.P. for the defendants, Regular Second Appeal No. 3829 of 2010 -3- learned trial court decided all the issues against the plaintiffs and resultantly, dismissed their suit. They preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court, but the same was dismissed, as aforesaid. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the findings recorded by the lower court are based upon misreading of the evidence. As per the evidence produced by the plaintiffs, they are still coming in possession of the land in dispute wherein they are carrying on their business activities with the help of electric connection installed therein. Thus, the following substantial question of law arises, “whether the findings of the lower courts are based upon misreading of the oral and documentary evidence?” Concurrent findings of facts were recorded by the lower courts that the land in dispute already stands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.. Those findings are based upon the notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the award made for the payment of the compensation. There is no such finding recorded by those courts, which may be said to be based on the misreading of the oral or documentary evidence. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE September 28, 2010 PARAMJIT