The judgment in a civil suit should be based on all relevant factors, not solely on a party's concession. Legal procedures, including the drafting of charge sheets and disagreement notes, must comply with the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 10.7.2013 alleged to have been received by the petitioner on 22.8.2013 Annexure P-18 and also disagreement note dated 8.6.2012 (Annexure P-15) whereby a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner.

2. In brief the facts are that in pursuance to a suit filed by the plaintiff claiming declaration with consequential relief for permanent injunction had been partly decreed vide judgment and decree dated 7.12.2005. The operative part of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:--

"in view of my findings on issued No. 1 to 3, clause (a) of the prayer seeking declaration regarding notice dated 4.11.97 being illegal is declined clause (b) of the prayer seeking declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the entire land is partly declined as the plaintiffs are owner in possession of area filing under schedule No. 18 but they cannot be held to be owner in possession of yellow portion; Clause (c)deserves to be allowed as it is the admitted case of the defendants that they are willing to allot the unauthorized area to the plaintiff on the payment of Rs. 22/- per sq. yard and even during arguments learned GP for the defendants conceded that the prayer may be allowed and defendants would be willing to allot the area of the plaintiff @ Rs. 22/- per sq. yard. As far as clause (d) of the prayer is concerned, in view of my findings on issue No. 3, prayer for injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs is allowed. However, defendants may proceed to dispossess the plaintiff from unauthorized area in case plaintiff do not pay the cost @ Rs. 22/- per sq. yard after demarcation and calculation of the encroached area to be performed within a period of three months and payments to be made within one month thereafter. That the dispossession shall be done only in accordance with the procedure established by law and not otherwise. Accordingly suit stands partly decreed and party dismissed with costs."

3. The aforementioned order had been passed on the basis of pleadings as well as documentary and oral evidence brought on record. It would be apt to refer to paragraph 10 of the plaint whereby the Industrial Department, Panipat categorically stated that an offer was given to the plaintiff to allot a land at the rate of ` 22/- per sq. yard, despite that the plaintiff did not deposit the same, accordingly proceedings for ejectment were initiated.

"That Para 10 of the plaint is wrong, hence denied. As submitted above, as per sale deed, an area of 100x 41 Sq.ft. i.e. 4100 sq. ft covered and 8246 sq. ft uncovered i.e. total 12346 sq. ft was sold to M/s. Anil Kumar Jai Parkash. Tentative demarcation was carried out and as per the same, the plaintiff was found in excess possession of the area measuring 32726 sq.ft. This are surrounded the area covered under the shed No. 18. Though the plaintiff has been admitting his illegal possession over that such area, and has been ready to purchase the same, yet the only dispute remained with regard to the rate at which it was being offered to the plaintiff by the defendant. Since the plaintiff failed to deposit the amount of the area, the question of allotment does not arise at all. So far as the question of rate was covered, since the plaintiff failed to accept the nominal rate of 22/- and did not deposit the amount the proceedings for ejectment of the plaintiff were initiated."

4. Even the witnesses of the defendant i.e. General Manager, District Industries Centre Panipat Industries in an affidavit submitted by way of examination-in-chief stated that the Government vide notification dated 20.8.1990 proposed the sale of excess land at the rate of 22 per sq. yard. The relevant paragraph of the affidavit is extracted hereinbelow:--

"That the Government vide modification dated 20 August 1990 proposed to se