R.S.A. No. 2971 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2971 of 2008 Date of Decision : 06.01.2009 Kirpal Singh ....Appellant Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal is directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 27.1.2006 and that of the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 6.5.2008. The appellant, who is the plaintiff, filed a suit for permanent injunction, inter-alia, pleading that Bharat Singh and Data Ram sons of Harnam were the owners in equal shares of the land measuring 380 Bighas 11 Biswas comprised in Khewat No.1101 situated in Kasba Karnal. 1/3rd share of this property was given to Umrao Singh from whom the appellant is said to have derived a title on the basis of a civil court decree 28.9.1991. It was pleaded that he is owner in possession of the land on the basis of a decree which Umrao Singh is said to have suffered on 28.9.1991 in his favour in Civil Suit R.S.A. No. 2971 of 2008 -2- No.951 of 1991. The State of Haryana which was impleaded as defendant in the suit stated that the suit was not maintainable as the land had been acquired on 30.4.1962 as per the award announced on the said date after completing all the formalities and procedure for acquisition. The learned trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit property? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the defendant No.1 has become owner in possession of the suit property by way of acquisition?OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for want of prior notice u/s 80 CPC? OPD 5. Whether the suit is within limitation?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has concealed material facts?OPD 7. Whether the suit is properly valued?OPD 8. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction?OPD 9. Relief. On the basis of the evidence adduced before it the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the land stood acquired in the year 1962 and there was sufficient evidence produced by the respondents the detail of which has also been delineated in para 10 of the judgment of the learned trial Court establishing the fact that the land stood acquired and that Umrao Singh from whom the appellant R.S.A. No. 2971 of 2008 -3- is said to have acquired the right to the suit property on the basis of a civil court decree had taken the compensation which fact was established on the basis of Exhibit D-5. In appeal, the findings were affirmed. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the aforesaid findings of the Courts below stated that there is no evidence to show that the land in question had ever vested in the State and, therefore, the civil court decree which Umrao Singh had suffered in his favour was a valid piece of documentary evidence which has been ignored by the courts below to negate his case. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the land had been acquired in the year 1962 and Umrao Singh, the owner of the land, had received the compensation. Therefore, the consequent decree suffered by Umrao Singh in favour of the appellant was without any basis as the land already stood vested in the State after completion of the acquisition proceedings and Umrao Singh was left with no interest and title in the property to bestow it further upon the appellant. In this view of the matter, once concurrent findings have been recorded by the courts below and no substantial question has been shown to have arisen in the present appeal, the same being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 6.1.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss