IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2238 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 29, 2011. Haryana Urban Development Authority. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Ajay Nara and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Har Dutt Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 10.05.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon dismissing the appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 31.08.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. RSA No.2238 of 2011 Respondents-plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant-defendant from interfering in their possession over the property in dispute. Respondents-plaintiffs purchased parts of Khasra No.7204/2249 vide sale deeds and they have been continuing in possession as owners. It is further submitted that out of the aforesaid land only a part i.e. Khasra No.7204/2249/1-Min measuring 8 Biswas and 10 Biswansi was acquired by the Government. Remaining part of said Khasra number is continuing in their possession as owners. However, in the garb of the same the present appellant-defendant intends to interfere in the possession of respondents-plaintiffs. Suit was contested by respondent-defendant by taking the plea that Khasra No.7204/2249/1-Min measuring 8 Biswas 10 Biswansi was acquired vide award No.18/6-1-96 by Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, Haryana and possession of the same was handed over to HUDA and that compensation was also received by the original land owners. It is further submitted that land was purchased by respondents-plaintiffs after pronouncement of the award. Suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was decreed by learned trial Court by holding that land owned by respondents- plaintiffs was never acquired and whatever land was acquired for construction of the road, the same is not in possession of respondents- plaintiffs. Appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed by learned first appellate Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the land was acquired for constructing the road and that part of the road has already been constructed. 2 RSA No.2238 of 2011 Admitted facts of parties are that, only part of Khasra No. 7204/2249 was acquired by the Government. The same has been shown as Khasra No.7204/2249/1-Min by the revenue officials. Road was also carved out while acquiring the said portion of the land. Khasra No.7204/2249 is a big Khasra number and the total measures 15 Biswas. The portion of the said Khasra number purchased by respondents-plaintiffs is not the same which is acquired by the State Government. A Local Commissioner was also appointed by the trial Court who has given his report regarding the fact that the houses of respondents-plaintiffs have been constructed over the portion of Khasra number purchased by them, which was left after the acquisition of part of the said Khasra number. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both learned Courts 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. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) August 29, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3