RSA No.2908 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2908 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 29, 2011 Anil Kumar .....Appellant v. Central Govt. through the Secretary and others .....Respondents Present: Mr.Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate for the appellant. ...... Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) C.M.No.8052-C of 2011 Application is allowed and appellant is permitted to make good the deficiency in Court fee. However, it has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that he has already made good the deficiency in Court fee. C.M.No.8053-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.2908 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 25.4.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 19.1.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patti, dismissing suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed this suit for possession RSA No.2908 of 2011(O&M) -2- with declaration that he is owner of the property in dispute and that respondents-defendants no.3 to 9 are in possession as tenants under the present appellant-plaintiff and that sale certificate issued in favour of respondents-defendants no.3 to 9 by respondent no.2 and subsequent mutation sanctioned in their favour is also null and void. On notice being issued, respondent-defendant no.2, i.e., State of Punjab, had taken, inter alia, plea that Civil Court is having no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Specific plea has been taken that the land in dispute was owned by Central Government and the same was auctioned in favour of respondents-defendants no.3 to 6 on 30.6.1992 by Tehsildar Sales, Patti. Hence, Sale certificate dated 14.1.1993 was also issued in their favour and they are continuing in possession of the same as owners. Respondents-defendants no.5 and 6 filed separate written statement taking the plea that they are owners in possession of the property in dispute as they have purchased the same in open auction and sale certificate dated 14.1.1993 was also issued in their favour. It has come on the record that appellant-plaintiff have already availed right of appeal against the impugned order issuing sale certificate in favour of respondents-defendants no.3 to 6 before Chief Sales Commissioner and their appeal was also dismissed vide order Ex.D6. The said order has become final. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned Courts below that Civil Court is having no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the legality of the order passed by competent authority under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Moreover, appellant-plaintiff has also taken the plea of adverse possession. At the same time they had taken the plea that respondents-defendants no.3 to 9 are RSA No.2908 of 2011(O&M) -3- in possession as tenant. As per revenue record, Central Government was recorded as owner of the property in dispute, which was sold in auction to respondents no.3 to 6. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by 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. 29.11.2011 ( Ram Chand Gupta ) meenu Judge