State of Haryana preferred second appeal against permanent injunction decree. Dismissed appeal, holding no substantial question of law arose and trial court finding of unauthorized possession warranted eviction via due process.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No. 695 of 1992
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 695 of 1992 Date of decision: 25.2.2012
Fateh Singh and others
…..Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
........Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana
Hemant Gupta, J.
Present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below whereby defendants-respondents were restrained from taking over the possession of the suit property except with due process of law.
Plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering in their possession over the land measuring 123 kanals 18 marlas as fully detailed in the plaint. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide the judgment and decree dated November 13, 1999. The State of Haryana preferred an appeal. It was found by the learned First Appellate Court that the plaintiffs are in possession and the State of Haryana can take possession of the disputed land in due course of law. The Court consequently, modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court only to the extent that the State of Haryana will not interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs except in due course of law. Hence, this
RSA No. 695 of 1992
-2-
appeal preferred by the State of Haryana.
Plaintiffs have not framed any substantial question of law and in fact none arises for consideration. The plaintiffs have sought injunction only on the basis of the possession. Learned trial Court has recorded a finding that the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute is unauthorized and they are liable to be evicted forthwith. But the suit was decreed for the reason that the plaintiffs are in possession as an unauthorized occupant. The plaintiffs are entitled to be evicted by following the due process of law as has been ordered by learned First Appellate Court. The decree granted by learned first Appellate Court does not give rise to any substantial question of law. There is no error in respect of fact of law which may warrant interference in the present second appeal.
Dismissed.
[HEMANT GUPTA] JUDGE
25.2.2012 preeti
Fateh Singh and others
State of Haryana
Hemant Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
