RSA No.503 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.503 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 22, 2011 Gurdial Singh and others .....Appellants v. Punjab State Lather Development Corporation .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.S.K.Arora, Advocate for the appellants. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.1353-CII of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 45 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.1354-CII of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 153 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No.503 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 11.2.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, dismissing appeal filed by present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 19.12.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot, dismissing suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone RSA No.503 of 2011(O&M) -2- through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellants-plaintiffs filed this suit for a decree for declaration that they are owners in possession of the land in dispute and that though plea is being taken by respondent that land was acquired by the Government in the year 1955 and, however, no compensation was received by predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants-plaintiffs. On notice being issued, specific plea was taken by respondent- defendant that the land in dispute was acquired by the Government vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short `the Act') on 10.3.1995 and subsequent notification issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 19.4.1955 and that the compensation for the land was also paid to its owner, namely, Sunder Singh, predecessor-in-interest of present appellants-plaintiffs and the possession of the land was also taken by the Government vide Rapat No.138 dated 7.1.1956. Plea has also been taken that Tannery Centre was installed by the Government by spending huge amount by raising boundary walls, sheds etc. It is also contended that the property in dispute has also since been auctioned and the possession was delivered to highest bidder, namely, Jagvinder Singh and Company. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs. Appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot. The only plea taken by learned counsel for the appellants is that as per the revenue record, appellants-plaintiffs have been continuing to be recorded as owners in possession of the land in dispute and that the RSA No.503 of 2011(O&M) -3- mutation in favour of respondent-Government has been illegally sanctioned. However, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs. The present land was acquired by the Government in the year 1955. The present suit was filed on 30.3.2005, i.e., after about 50 years of the acquisition. Hence, plea of appellants-plaintiffs that compensation of the land was not received by their ancestors cannot be accepted. Notifications regarding payment of compensation as well as for taking possession were issued. The only fault of respondent-defendant was that the mutation regarding ownership after acquisition was not got sanctioned immediately and that the same was got sanctioned much thereafter. However, merely on the ground that the mutation was sanctioned belatedly in favour of respondent-Government after acquisition of the land in dispute, it cannot be said that the appellants-plaintiffs are left with any right in the land in dispute, after the acquisition proceedings were completed. 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 court 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. 22.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge