IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2792 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 12, 2011. Smt. Anguri Devi. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus State of Haryana and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 29.04.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Panipat vide which appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 21.07.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Panipat, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. RSA No.2792 of 2011 Briefly stated, appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they and proforma defendants have right to use the Rasta/pathway i.e. disputed passage having width of 15 feet in front of their houses towards eastern side with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining respondents-defendants from raising construction of the boundary wall on the said passage. Admitted facts are that appellants-plaintiffs had been residing in Sector 6, HUDA, Taraf Patti Insar, Panipat. They had purchased the plots underneath their houses from the erstwhile owners. As per the sale deeds 15 feet wide passage was being used by them and other inhabitants of the locality. The land adjacent to the passage was owned by the Central Government/Defence Ministry of India and the same was transferred to the State of Haryana for construction of Mini Secretariat and Judicial Complex. Later on, the land situated between the railway line and the land for Mini Secretariat was acquired for development of residential Sector 6. However, on the request of present appellant their houses were released from acquisition on payment of development charges. Defendants have taken the plea that the land which is being used for construction of Mini Secretariat and Judicial Complex was previously owned by the Central Government/Defence Ministry of India and the same was transferred to the State Government of Haryana for constructing Mini Secretariat and Judicial Complex over the same. As per the demarcation report given by the Tehsildar there was no passage. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the passage was in existence from the very beginning and the said fact was also mentioned in the sale deeds and the appellants had been using the same 2 RSA No.2792 of 2011 for ingress and egress to their houses. However, both the courts have come to the conclusion that no such passage is in existence as per the revenue record between the land meant for Mini Secretariat and Judicial Complex and the land bearing Khasra Nos.906 and 907 out of which the present appellant and proforma defendants had purchased the plots. As there was no passage between the land meant for Mini Secretariat and Judicial Complex and the land bearing Khasra Nos.906 and 907, appellants-plaintiffs and proforma defendants should have got carved out passage for their plots out of the land of Khasra Nos.906 and 907. If previous owners as per revenue record had not reserved the land for passage out of Khasra Nos.906 and 907, it has been rightly observed by learned first appellate Court that appellants-plaintiffs cannot claim the right of easement of necessity out of the land meant for Mini Secretariat and Judicial Complex, which was owned by Central Government/ Defence Ministry of India and which was transferred to State Government of Haryana for that purpose. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the 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 the 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. 3 RSA No.2792 of 2011 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) July 12, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 4