Judgment:
Singh Varinder 2014.08.06 14:09 Rs.No.4651 of 2009 (1) I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.4651 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.7.2014 Haryana Urban Development Authority and another .Appellant versus Partap Singh .Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr.Rahul Garg, Advocate for Mr.Manish Bansal, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the respondent.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The defendants are in appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court whereby the findings of the trial Court that the suit land is part and parcel of khaSr.Nos.125 and 126 was reversed, and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction, was decreed.
It is a case in which the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit seeking restraint against the appellants-defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit property and also from demolishing the structure existing thereon.
The plaintiff claimed that he is owner in possession of the property bearing House No.305, situated in Shashtri Colony, Faridabad, whereas the case set up by the appellants-defendants was that the area in possession of the plaintiff was part of khaSr.Nos.125 and 136.
The same was acquired by the State.
The possession was handed over to HUDA for which the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector in the year 1972-73.
The learned Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff only to the extent that the appellants may take action against the plaintiff in due couRs.of law as the possession of the plaintiff on the plot in question has been proved.
However, in appeal filed by the plaintiff, permanent injunction was granted finding that the appellants have not been able to prove the ownership on the property in dispute after acquisition.
Singh Varinder 2014.08.06 14:09 Rs.No.4651 of 2009 (2) I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that when the case was pending before the trial Court, a local commissioner was appointed who in the presence of son of the plaintiff carried out the demarcation and found that part of the area in possession of the respondent-plaintiff was forming part of khaSr.Nos.125 and 136.
He further submitted that earlier suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking declaration of ownership on the basis of adveRs.possession was dismissed.
He has not been able to prove himself as owner of the property in question though his possession was established.
He further submitted that the learned Lower Appellate Court had wrongly discarded the report of the local commissioner, who had carried out the demarcation of the land.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the site plan prepared by the Director of Town & Country Planning, Ex.
P-101, produced on record by the respondent-plaintiff, shows the acquired area, which is forming part of the land of Sector-19, Faridabad.
In the aforesaid plan, the area in possession of the respondent-plaintiff has been shown above plot No.1114.
As per the details given in the plan, it is evident that the land in dispute is not forming part of the acquired land.
Further referring to the site plan, Ex.
D-11, produced by the appellants-defendants, he submitted that the location of the area in possession of the respondent-plaintiff is not in dispute as even in the plan produced by the appellants, the plaintiff is being shown in possession of the area at the same place.
Both the site plans are identical.
Only that in the site plan produced by the appellants, the plot numbers have not been shown.
Once the area in possession of the respondent-plaintiff has not been acquired, the appellants are not entitled to take any action against the respondent-plaintiff.
He further submitted that in the earlier litigation, which was filed against HUDA, where the plaintiff had claimed ownership on the basis of adveRs.possession, the suit was dismissed.
Against the judgment of the trial court declining the relief to the respondent-plaintiff, the appeal was filed, which was disposed of on the statement made by the representatives of the HUDA that the HUDA owns the land forming part of Sector-19, Faridabad, whereas it has no concern with the land forming part of Shashtri Colony.
Singh Varinder 2014.08.06 14:09 Rs.No.4651 of 2009 (3) I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh The demarcation report as was produced in the trial Court by the Local Commissioner was rightly not relied as pucca point was not fixed.
The same will not have any relevance as from the site plans produced by the appellants as well as the respondent-plaintiff, the location of the area in possession of the plaintiff is not in dispute.
No substantial question of law arises.
Dismissed.
11.7.2014 ( Rajesh Bindal ) vs Judge