LPA No. 1408 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1408 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 28.10.2010 Kirtan Singh ............Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...............Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Shri S.S.Salar, Advocate, for the appellant. RANJAN GOGOI, J. : (Oral) Heard. The appellant-writ petitioner who is facing an order of eviction under the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the aforesaid order of eviction. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by holding that the appellant has failed to substantiate his ownership of the land as well as that his ancestors were in possession of the land at the time of vesting of the same in the government so as to take out the eviction proceedings from the purview of the Act in question. Though the twin grounds noticed above were rejected for want of any acceptable material and though the same involves disputed questions of fact, we have made an endeavour to appreciate the strenuous arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the materials on record LPA No. 1408 of 2010(O&M) 2 would indicate possession of the ancestors of the appellant at the time of vesting of the land in the government. In this regard we have noticed that a suit for declaration for title on the basis of adverse possession was filed by the appellant which was dismissed by the learned trial court. The said decree was affirmed in appeal. In the said civil proceeding the appellant had claimed possession of the land on the basis of the jamabandi of the year 1932 B.K. The claim in the present writ petition has been made on the same basis. The decision of the civil court on the claims of the appellant being adverse to him, entertainment of the same claims by us in the present proceeding would virtually amount to sitting in appeal over the judgment of the civil court which has attained finality in law. We are, therefore, of the view that this appeal does not merit admission. Dismissed. C.M.No.4253 of 2010 As the Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed, no order is required to be passed on the condonation application. C.M. No. 4255 of 2010 As the Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed, no order is required to be passed on the application for stay. (RANJAN GOGOI) JUDGE (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE October 28, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? _____ LPA No. 1408 of 2010(O&M) 3