R.S.A. No. 721 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 721 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 12.2.2009 Ved Ram .......... Appellant Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector 12, Faridabad ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2008 passed by the learned lower appellate Court vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for permanent injunction stands dismissed. The plaintiff brought a suit for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff- appellant. On notice, defence was taken that in fact the land in dispute stands acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act after issuing notices under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It has also been proved on record that award under Section 9 also stands passed. R.S.A. No. 721 of 2009 2 Though the plaintiff appellant have not taken the compensation for the acquisition of land. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that as no notice was issued to the appellant-plaintiff he is entitled to injunction. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration by this Court in this appeal :- 1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court is outcome of misreading of evidence brought on record ? 2. Whether without issuance of notice under the Land Acquisition Act to the appellant the plea taken by the respondent is not sustainable in law ? In support of the substantial questions of law the learned counsel for the appellant contends that once a finding has been recorded that no notice was issued to the plaintiff-appellant, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court is outcome of misreading of evidence and perverse in law. He further contends that the acquisition proceedings stood vitiated for want of notice to the plaintiff- appellant. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The Civil Court could not have gone into legality of the acquisition under the Land Acquisition act. The notice is given by way of publication in the news papers under Section R.S.A. No. 721 of 2009 3 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The remedy with the appellant was not to go to the Civil Court. The learned lower appellate Court rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction. The substantial questions of law as framed, are answered against the plaintiff-appellant. No merit. Dismissed. 12.2.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE