R.S.A.No. 2683 of 2001 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2683 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.10. 2009 Union of India ......Appellant Versus Hoshnak Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.Sangeeta Dhanda, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.M.L.Sarin, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Hemani Sarin, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Hoshnak Singh filed a suit for possession of Khasra No.34/1/2 measuring 4 kanals 3 marlas situated in Revenue Estate of Daulatpur of Tehsil Pathankot District Gurdaspur. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Pathankot vide judgment and decree dated 22.2.1986. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, R.S.A.No. 2683 of 2001 (O&M) 2 Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 21.4.1989. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Plaintiff-respondent filed suit for possession of land bearing Khasra No.34/1/2(4-3) Khewat No.112/1 as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1966-67 in the revenue estate of village Daulatpur by removal of malba. Plaintiff alleged that he was owner of the land in dispute which had come to him in exchange for which, mutation No.1153 was sanctioned. The suit land had not been acquired by the defendant and it had no concern therewith. The same was lying fallow. Under the garb of acquisition, defendant recently encroached the suit land. The suit was filed after notice under Section 80 CPC was given to the defendant. 3. In the written statement filed through the Defence Estate Officer, Pathankot Circle, the defendant admitted that the land in dispute fell near the land acquired by it. The suit land was not under the occupation of the defence department. Since the defendant did not encroach upon the land in dispute, the question of its handing over possession did not arise.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were R.S.A.No. 2683 of 2001 (O&M) 3 framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the property in dispute is in illegal custody of the defendant? OPP 2. In case issue No.1 proved in affirmative as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the property in dispute after removal of the malba if any? OPP 3. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The case of the plaintiff was that the Khasra number 34/12 had not been acquired by defendant-Union of India. Admittedly, in the written statement filed by defendant-Union of India, the fact that the suit land had never been acquired by it was admitted. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to satisfy this Court that the land in dispute was in fact acquired by the appellant. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 05, 2009 anita