R.S.A. No. 3509 of 2007 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3509 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.2.2009 Mohan Lal & others .......... Appellants Versus Faridabad Municipal Corporation, Faridabad ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 9804-C of 2007 This is an application for condoning the delay of 173 days in refiling the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 173 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands allowed. R.S.A. No. 3509 of 2007 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 13.5.2004 and 25.10.2006 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants for declaration and injunction to challenge an order passed by the authorities under the Public R.S.A. No. 3509 of 2007 -2- Premises Act, stands dismissed. Plaintiff-appellants brought a suit on the plea that plaintiffs were in possession of the property in their legal right and, therefore, the order dated 31.3.1995 passed under the Public Premises Act ordering their eviction was bad in law the consequential relief was sought seeking injunction against their dispossession. The learned trial Court observed that merely in view of the entries in the revenue record showing possession did not vest ownership in the plaintiff-appellants. The learned Courts further held that the appellants were in unauthorised occupation of the public property and that they were rightly ordered to be evicted. In addition, the learned Courts also held that though the declaration was sought to challenge the order dated 31.3.1995, however, the said order was not placed on record. It was therefore held that the order without having been placed on record could not be challenged in Civil Court. The order of eviction thus attained finality. The concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Courts below holding that the order impugned could not be challenged on the pleas raised by the plaintiff-appellants that their possession is depicted in the revenue record though unauthorised. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned Courts below especially keeping in view the fact that order impugned was not even placed on record is not open to challenge in regular second appeal. R.S.A. No. 3509 of 2007 -3- This appeal raises no substantial question of law. No merit. Dismissed in limine. 10.2.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE