RSA-1258-2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 RSA-1258-2021 Date of Decision: 04.03.2025 JARNAIL SINGH …..Appellant Vs. HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD AND ORS …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Balbir Kumar Saini, Advocate for the appellant. ****** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Plainff of the case has approached this Court against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 2.1 Plainff filed the suit seeking decree of mandatory injuncon with consequenal relief of permanent injuncon by pleading that in the year 2002, Adarsh Cooperave House Building Society Limited (Regd.), Raipur Rani, Panchkula had transferred a plot and shop in his name, on which he had constructed House No.628 in Adarsh Colony and since then he is residing therein with his family. Defendant-Market Commi5ee, Raipur Rani, Panchkula had issued a false and frivolous noce dated 03.07.2015 alleging the plainff to be to in unauthorized possession of the Commi5ee land and instructed him to remove the same. He filed the suit for declaraon, but the same was dismissed by the Civil Court, Panchkula. 2.2 Plainff further pleaded that defendants were alleging that Government of Haryana had acquired the land for se;ng up the Mandi and that some poron of already exisng houses was part of the acquired land, regarding which compensaon had already been paid. Plainff contended that neither he was made aware about any compensaon nor was disclosed about the area acquired by the defendants. Alleging that without paying Page 1 of 3 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.03.06 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1258-2021 any compensaon to him, defendant No.1 had started interfering in his possession and tried to demolish the wall, plainff brought the present suit. 3. Defendant contested the suit by pleading the same to be barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC, as the previous suit filed by the plainff had already been dismissed on 09.04.2014 and no appeal against the said judgment had been filed. Proceedings under Secon 4 of the Public Premises (Evicon of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 had been iniated against the plainff regarding 1 marla of land belonging to the defendants and he had been ordered to be evicted therefrom. It was further contended that Government of Haryana had acquired the land for the purpose of development and ulizaon as Anaj Mandi in 2004. On demarcaon by the Revenue Department, plainff was found to be in illegal occupaon of the land to the extent of 1 marla comprised in Khasra No.11/15 of H.B. No.7, on which he had raised illegal construcon. He was asked to remove the same by issuing numerous noces during 2007-2008, but he refused to do the same. Evicon order was passed against him by the ACIG and when the same was sought to be executed, plainff brought the suit tled Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, which was dismissed on 09.04.2014. Plainff was again asked several mes to vacate the land, but instead of doing so, he filed the present suit. It was further pleaded that neither claim for any compensaon was maintainable before the Civil Court nor any compensaon was payable to him. 4. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the pares was taken on record. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 20.04.2017 and the Appellate Court upheld the findings. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that Courts below have wrongly held the suit to be barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC inasmuch as the earlier suit was for decree of permanent injuncon, whereas the subsequent suit was filed for disclosing the compensaon amount deposited by the defendants, as the stand was taken by the Page 2 of 3 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.03.06 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1258-2021 defendants that they had acquired the land, out of which 1 marla land belonged to the plainff. 6. AEer perusing the enre paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the contenon. As has been observed by the Courts below that though the appellant-plainff took the stand that he had been allo5ed the land by Adarsh Cooperave House Building Society Limited, but plainff failed to prove any such allotment. He did not produce any document whatsoever to prove his tle to the suit property. 7. Before this Court also, learned counsel for the appellant- plainff fairly conceded that neither any allotment le5er in favour of the plainff was proved on record nor any official from the Adarsh Cooperave House Building Society Limited was examined so as to prove any allotment in favour of the plainff. 8. As per the stand of the defendants, it is the land of Adarsh Cooperave House Building Society Limited, which had been acquired and they had been paid the compensaon. The appellant-plainff failed to prove any allotment in his favour; or that the illegal encroached poron belonged to him at any point of me. 9. On account of aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any ground to disturb the well-reasoned concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below. There is neither any illegality nor perversity in appreciang the evidence on record. As such, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 04.03.2025 JUDGE Pry Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No Page 3 of 3 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.03.06 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document