- (1.) Heard the leamed counsel for the parties. A short question invoived in this appeal is with regard to the possession of Kill Nos. 13/4 and 14/1 of Rectangle No. 226 situated at Patti Tihav, Hodal. A suit had been filed by the respondents for possession against the present appellant. The suit had been decreed and even the appeal filed has been dismissed1. In these circumstances, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the land in question has already been acquired under notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Moreover, the possession of the land in question had already been taken on 20-4-1981 and compensation in respect of the land in question had already been paid to the respondents. The relevant notifications under Sections 4 and 6 have been placed on record.
(3.) In the aforesaid circumstances, in our opinion the suit for possession could not have been decreed, especially when the land had already been acquired. For the aforesaid reason, the appeal is disposed of as allowed. The impugned judgement, Market Committee, Hodal v. Sukh Devi, RSA No. 4126 of 2002, decided on 20-2-2006 (P&H) is set aside and the suit is dismissed. No order as to costs.;