C.M.No.11599-CII of 2011 in RSA No.2337 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.No.11599-CII of 2011 in RSA No.2337 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 12, 2011 Rahat Singh .....Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Kuldeep Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.11599-CII of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and order dated 5.9.2011 dismissing the appeal in default is recalled. Registry is directed to register the appeal at its original number. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.6436-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 34 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No.2337 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 3.1.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 16.7.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge C.M.No.11599-CII of 2011 in RSA No.2337 of 2011(O&M) -2- (Junior Division), Pehowa, 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 a suit for a decree for declaration with the averments that he is in continuous possession of land in dispute and that his possession is unathorised, uninterrupted and adverse to the true owner for the last more than 60 years and hence he has become owner by way of adverse possession. Consequential relief of injunction is also sought. On notice being issued, suit was contested by respondents- defendants by taking the plea that the suit is not maintainable in the present form and in fact ejectment order has already been passed against appellant- plaintiff by competent revenue court and that pursuant to that order, possession had also been taken by respondents-defendants. Plea has been taken that the land was acquired in the year 1959 for public purpose by the Government and that earlier Gram Panchayat was the owner of the land in dispute. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff is that he is still in possession of the land in dispute. However, the plea cannot be accepted as vide order Ex.DW1/A ejectment order was already passed by competent revenue Court against appellant-plaintiff and C.M.No.11599-CII of 2011 in RSA No.2337 of 2011(O&M) -3- the possession was taken over by the respondent-Government. It has been held by both the Courts below that respondent-Government is at present in possession of the same as owner. Moreover, it has been rightly observed by learned courts below that suit for declaration as owner on the basis of alleged adverse possession is also not maintainable. 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. 12.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge