CM No.983-C of 2010 in/and -1- RSA No.358 of 2010 (O&M) ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.983-C of 2010 in/and RSA No.358 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:09.11.2010. Birbal ...Appellant Versus Haryana State and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’B LE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Lekh Raj Nandal, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. CM No.983-C of 2010 This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 79 days in filing of the appeal. Reply to the application has been filed. It is mentioned in the application that due to shifting of the house of learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, the file was misplaced, therefore, appeal could not be filed in time. The reason assigned is found to be genuine as it can possibly happen. Hence, the present application is allowed and the delay of 79 days in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.358 of 2010 (O&M) The plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. CM No.983-C of 2010 in/and -2- RSA No.358 of 2010 (O&M) ****** The case set up by the plaintiff is that he is co-owner in possession of the land measuring 10 Kanals 06 Marlas comprised in Killa Nos.77//7/1/2 and 8/1, situated in village Sham Sukh, Tehsil and District Hisar. Land in dispute is being used by the plaintiff for residential purposes and abutting to the land in dispute, there is a common passage having 6 karams width, comprised in Khasra No.171/3, sanctioned 40 years ago at the time of consolidation of holdings, which is owned by the State Government, but respondent Nos.1 to 4 illegally wanted to carve out the passage from the land in dispute because defendant Nos.5 to 9 have encroached upon the area of original passage by raising construction. The suit was contested by the respondents, out of which, defendant No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte. The learned Courts below have held that the land stood acquired vide notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short “the Act”] Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 for which a suit for declaration cannot be filed before the Civil Court. It is also held that the plaintiff had filed CWP No.17843 of 2000 titled as `Birbal V s. State of Haryana' which has been withdrawn by him and without disclosing the said fact, the present suit has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Courts below has erred in not granting enough opportunity to the plaintiff to examine the retired Field Kanoongo Sant Lal to prove his demarcation reports Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. However, he has failed to reply that how the suit is maintainable when the land stood acquired with the issuance of notifications under Section 4 read with Sections 17 and 6 of the Act. It is now well settled that jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred to seek a declaratory decree in respect of the acquisition of land. In view of the above discussion and especially in the absence of any substantial question of law having been framed or raised by learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. November 09, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE