R.S.A. No. 1529 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1529 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.04.2009 Ranjit Singh ....appellant versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for the appellant. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 5.3.2009 passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant, for declaration and permanent injunction stands partly decreed, and the relief of injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiff/appellant, as he was found to be in possession. The plaintiff brought a suit for permanent injunction on the plea that he was owner in possession of the property in dispute in pursuance to the exchange, with the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact, that the plaintiff has failed to prove R.S.A. No. 1529 of 2009 (O&M) -2- the exchange, as no document was produced in support thereof. The learned Courts below further held, that Haryana Urban Development Authority being a statutory body, could not act wihout authority, as an authority was required in favour of official to execute exchange deed. The learned Courts below, however, found the possession to be of the plaintiff/appellant and, thus, granted injunction restraining the defendant/respondents from dispossessing plaintiff/appellant except with due process of law. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law: - "Whether the finding of the learned Courts below relating to ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land is perverse and, thus, liable to be set aside?" In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that ample evidence, was brought on record to show that the property in dispute was exchanged by the plaintiff/appellant, by the property given to the respondents for development of park. However, the learned Courts below have ignored material evidence on record and recorded a perverse finding to hold that the plaintiff/appellant failed to prove his ownership. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, cannot be accepted, as the learned Courts below have righly held, that exchange by Haryana Urban Development Authority could not be without a written document. Once the exchange was not proved, and there was clear admission that the property in dispute was under the ownership of R.S.A. No. 1529 of 2009 (O&M) -3- HUDA, the finding recorded on appreciation of evidence, cannot be said to be perverse, as contended. The substantial question of law is answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge April 18, 2009 R.S.