JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Present appeal has been filed by New Pink City Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. to assail the judgment dated 16.5.1997 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff appellant was dismissed. The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit in the year 1983 for specific performance of alleged agreement to sell dated 1.5.1975 purportedly executed between the parties. The case set out by the plaintiff in the plaint was that on 1.5.1975 the defendants Jamnya, Moolya (since deceased), Ram Kishan and Govinda all sons of Birdha having agricultural land measuring 3 Bighas 6 Biswas falling in Khasra Nos.140, 141, 142 and 175 of revenue village Chayanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,88,500/-, had executed an agreement to sell by receiving earnest money of Rs. 1001/-. 2. Shri R.P. Garg learned counsel for the defendants respondents has raised a preliminary objection. It has been submitted that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act qua the land in question was issued on 26.7.1969. Thereafter notification under Section 6 was issued on 28.2.1973 and the award was passed giving compensation to the owners of the land on 17.5.1975. It is submitted that the suit has been filed after eight years of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 3. Shri R.K. Agrawal learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has not denied that while deciding issue No.5, the court below has held that after acquisition of the land, agreement dated 1.5.1975 is null and void. However, Shri Agrawal has submitted that as per notification dated 10.7.1999 issued by the Urban Development & Housing Department, Jaipur, a housing cooperative society in possession of the land is entitled to get the said land regularized in spite of the acquisition of the land by the government. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the notification relied by Shri Agrawal is of no help to him as the plaintiff appellant Society was not in possession of the land on the day agreement to sell was executed. Furthermore, the court below has returned a finding that agreement to sell relied by the plaintiff-appellant has not been proved. The court opined that the said agreement to sell was witnessed by Chandalal, Jagannath and another person. Furthermore, the court below has returned a finding that agreement to sell relied by the plaintiff-appellant has not been proved. The court opined that the said agreement to sell was witnessed by Chandalal, Jagannath and another person. The court further held that the plaintiff has neither produced in court Radheyshyam who signed the agreement to sell on behalf of the appellant, nor Chandalal and Jagannath witnesses to the agreement to sell, whereas the defendants-respondents examined D.W.1 Jamnya who stated that Sarpanch Bhanwarlal had obtained his thumb impression on the blank papers. The court also took into consideration a criminal complaint (Ex. P.10) filed by Gopal (D.W.4). In the said criminal complaint it was specifically stated that agreement to sell was a forged and fabricated document. 5. This court need not go to the other issues as the core question is regarding execution of agreement to sell. Shri Agrawal could not read evidence of any witness to say that the said agreement was witnessed in his presence. No attesting witness to agreement to sell has been examined by the plaintiff-appellant. Even Radheyshyam in whose favour the agreement was executed on behalf of the plaintiff has not been examined. No signatory to agreement to sell has been examined by the plaintiff-appellant. Therefore, Shri Agrawal could not point out any other fault with the reasoning given by the court below. 6. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and it is hereby, dismissed.