High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
State of Haryana & Ors v. Smt. Sharda Devi - RSA-583-2006  RD-P&H 938 (17 February 2006)
R.S.A. No. 583 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: February 6, 2006
State of Haryana and others
Smt. Sharda Devi
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate
for the appellants.
VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
The defendant- State of Haryana and others having concurrently lost before both the Courts below in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff have approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.
The plaintiff claimed that he was owner in possession and had raised construction in her own property. A notice was issued by the Sub Divisional Engineer- defendant No.3 that she had encroached upon the suit property. It was claimed that the notice was bad inasmuch as the demarcation report dated November 8, 1989 showed that there was no such encroachment. However, the R.S.A. No. 583 of 2006 (O&M) 
defendants were trying to dispossess the plaintiff and demolish the suit property, and therefore, the suit was filed.
Both the Courts below have upheld the claim of the plaintiff based on the demarcation report Ex.PW2/1 dated November 8, 1989 and the report of the Naib Tehsildar, who was appointed as Local Commissioner, Ex.P.4 dated February 28, 1999. On that basis, it was held that plaintiff had raised the construction in her own property. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed and the appeal of the defendants was dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
February 6, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.