JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri V.K. Bisht, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mrs. Seema Sirohi, counsel for the appellant and Sri Sandeep Tandon, counsel for the respondent. 2. By the present Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.4.2003 passed by the District Judge, Uttarkashi in Appeal No. 08 of 1999 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 2.6.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Civil Suit No. 35 of 1998 Balbir Singh Vs. Nagar Panchayat through its President and others. 3. Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the plaintiff/appellant being Civil Suit No. 35 of 1998 Balbir Singh Vs. Nagar Panchayat through its President and others praying to the following effect : ß¼15½ ;g fd oknh izkFkhZ gS fd oknh ds i{k esa rFkk izfroknhx.k 1 ls 3 rd ds foi{k esa bl vej dh LFkk;h fu’ks/kkKk dh fMØh c[“kh tk;s fd xzke cM+dksV ds [kljk uañ 3127@2 jdck 0-005 gSñ 1-00 jdeh Hkwfe ftlds iwjc esa fnYyh ;equks=h eksVj ekxZ] if”pe esa mijkM+h xnsjk] mÙkj esa Vkmu ,fj;k cM+dksV esa lQkbZ uk;dksa dk vkokl] nf{k.k esa yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx }kjk fufeZr vkjñlhñlhñ iqy fLFkr gS] esa izfroknhx.k lañ 1 ls 3 rd Lo;a ;k vU; fdlh Hkh O;fDr }kjk oknh }kjk fufeZr edku ds fuekZ.k esa NsM+[kkuh djus rFkk {kfr igqapkus rFkk oknh ds mi;ksx esa vojksèk iSnk djus ls lnSo lnSo ds fy, ckt jgsAÞ 4. Present Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law : "1. Whether the learned lower court erred by not appreciating the fact that order passed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the year 1998 in a Public Interest Litigation for not granting permission in hill area where more than 100 houses exist was not retrospective? 2. Whether after due sanction of map by competent authority the defendants/respondents could be permitted to interfere in the construction work of the appellant being done in accordance with the sanction?" 5. According to the plaint, the plaintiff/appellant is the licencee of Khasra No. 3127/2 area 0.005 hectare 1.00 rakmi. It was granted in favour of the plaintiff in the year, 1988 for residential purposes, since then he is continuing to be in possession of the land in dispute. According to the plaint, the plaintiff/appellant is the licencee of Khasra No. 3127/2 area 0.005 hectare 1.00 rakmi. It was granted in favour of the plaintiff in the year, 1988 for residential purposes, since then he is continuing to be in possession of the land in dispute. Further, the plaintiff has submitted that it was duly sanctioned on 5th May, 1995 and immediately, thereafter, after a period of 15 days, he has started constructions. The plaintiff laid R.C.C. pillars in three years and thereafter, the wall was to be raised. During this period on 20.11.1998, the defendant gave a notice to stop the work with the help of the Police Authorities. The said notice was given without showing any reason and now they want to stop the construction. Hence, present suit has been filed. 6. Respondents have contested the claim by filing a written statement stating therein that plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief and he is not the resident of Nagar Panchayat Barkot. It has further been stated that he owns a house and the patta has been acquired by him concealing this fact. It has further been stated that the map has been got sanctioned violating the terms of the lease and shops have been constructed in place of residential house. It has further been stated that till August, 1998, no construction work has been started. 7. The trial Court vide order dated 2nd June, 1999 decreed the suit and restrained the defendants from interfering with the portion of the premises in question, which has already been constructed and also issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. 8. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant has preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999 Nagar Panchayat Barkot Vs. Balbir Singh and others. 9. The aforesaid appeal was allowed on 24th April, 2003 by recording a finding that since the lease has already been cancelled, therefore, the plaintiff has no right to claim injunction against the defendant. 10. Present second appeal has been filed against the said judgment and decree. 11. I have gone through the judgment of the lower appellate Court. 9. The aforesaid appeal was allowed on 24th April, 2003 by recording a finding that since the lease has already been cancelled, therefore, the plaintiff has no right to claim injunction against the defendant. 10. Present second appeal has been filed against the said judgment and decree. 11. I have gone through the judgment of the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court has already recorded a finding that since lease has been cancelled in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, sanction of the map will have no effect on the rights of the plaintiff. 12. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any substantial questions of law involved in the appeal so as to interfere under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, since the claimant is in possession, he shall not be evicted from the property in dispute except in accordance with law and further it will depend upon the ultimate result in the lease case pending in the writ petition. 13. Subject to aforesaid observation, present Second Appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.