The High Court
Case Details
RSA No.282 820 of 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STA HARYANA AT CHAN E STATES OF PUNJAB AND HANDIGARH 130 Amit and oth nd others Bimla and ot and others RSA N RSA No.2820 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.08.2025 Date o Vs ...Appellants ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMA AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Ishnoor Singh, Advocate Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellants. -.- AMARINDE INDER SINGH GREWAL J. (OR RAL) 1. The instant regular second app y the d appeal has been preferred by the appellants-de defendants No.2 to 6 against j ated inst judgments and decrees dated 25.07.2023 a 023 and 29.07.2025 passed by the the y the learned trial Court and the learned 1st Appellate Court respectively wh atory ely whereby the suit for mandatory and permane rmanent injunction has been decree ourt, decreed by the learned trial Court, which finding finding has been upheld by the learned earned 1st Appellate Court in appeal. 2. In brief, the facts are that plainti
Legal Reasoning
ouse plaintiffs have their residential house in village Ba ge Barhi adjacent to a common gali .716, gali comprised in Khewat No.716, Khata No.84 No.847, Rect. & Killa No.299 situa a of situated within the abadi area of village Barhi Barhi, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonep d by Sonepat, which was constructed by the Gram Pan am Panchayat about 10-12 years ago. H eing . However, the defendants being powerful and ul and strong headed persons and h with and having political vendetta with plaintiffs, con constructed their houses by encroa mon croaching upon the said common gali. Due to ue to said act of defendants, passage been ssage through the said gali has been completely b tely blocked. Plaintiffs also requ - requested the Gram Panchayat- PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.282 820 of 2025 (O&M) -2- defendant No ant No.8 to take action against defenda en as efendants but no action was taken as members of s of Gram Panchayat also collude spite olluded with defendants. Despite repeated requ d requests made to defendants to re and to remove the encroachment and illegal constr constructions over the common gali and ali, they did not pay any heed and hence, the pre the present civil suit. 3. Defendant No.1 contested the su ent, the suit by filing written statement, taking prelim preliminary objections qua jurisdictio tion, isdiction, maintainability, limitation, locus standi ndi, plaintiffs not coming to court w se of court with clean hands and cause of action. On m
Legal Reasoning
On merits, it was submitted that pla di to plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit a suit as they are neither the permane e nor rmanent residents of the village nor they have a ave a residential house in village The llage Barhi, except Santosh. The existence of t ce of the common gali was denied as usly ied as the revenue record previously showed the s d the suit land as rasta, which was late urse as later converted into water course as per require requirement. Defendant No.1 built his and uilt his house about 40 years ago and thus, prayed f rayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Defendants No.2 to 7 filed the ment their separate written statement stating therei therein that plaintiffs are not habitan long habitants of the village since a long time and hav d have no right to file the present sui s and ent suit. They are in continuous and hostile posse possession of the suit land within ram ithin the knowledge of the Gram Panchayat fo yat for more than 30 years. 5. Defendant No.8-Gram Panch ritten Panchayat filed separate written statement an ent and besides taking preliminary o Killa nary objection, submitted that Killa No.299 is a is a bhana in the revenue record an nt is ord and the answering defendant is owner of the of the same. It was further stated tha t has ted that the answering defendant has filed an appli n application under Section 7 of the P ands the Punjab Village Common Lands PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.282 820 of 2025 (O&M) -3- (Regulation) ation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred e ferred to as the Act of 1961) before the SDO Civ O Civil Collector, Ganaur to get posse ch is t possession of the suit land, which is pending. 6. From the pleadings of the parties ed as parties, learned trial Court framed as many as seve as seven issues including relief. In s ntiffs . In support of their case, plaintiffs examined thr three witnesses and tendered docu r the documents viz; jamabandi for the year 2017-20 2018 as Ex.P1, demarcation as x.P3. as Ex.P2 and akshsijra as Ex.P3. On the othe e other hand, defendants examined ered ined five witnesses and tendered following doc ing documents:- Ex.D-1 Ex.DW3/A Ex.DW3/B Ex.DW-4/A Ex.DW-5/A Ex.DW-5/B : : : : : : Jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Jamaba Record of Survey of India Record Copy of Register Copy o Resolution dated 29.01.2013 Resolu Jamabandi for the year 2012-13 Jamaba Jamabandi for the year 2017-18 Jamaba 7. On appreciation of oral as well , the s well as documentary evidence, the learned trial trial Court found that defendants ha land ants have encroached upon the land belonging to ing to the Gram Panchayat and early and the revenue record clearly established th shed the ownership of Gram Panchay suit. anchayat and thus, decreed the suit. Two separat eparate appeals preferred before the re the 1st Appellate Court by the the defendant No ant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 6 ag ecree against the judgment and decree passed by th by the learned trial Court, have als ever, ve also been dismissed. However, appellants-de defendants No.2 to 6 chose to fi cond e to file the present regular second appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appe to 6 appellants-defendants No.2 to 6 submits that s that the demarcation of Killa No the lla No.299 as relied upon by the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.282 820 of 2025 (O&M) -4- plaintiffs was ffs was got conducted by the plaintiffs es of intiffs, has no sanctity in the eyes of law, as Plot Plot No.298, which belongs to appe aken o appellant No.4 has not been taken into account count at the time of demarcation. have ation. Learned courts below have completely i tely ignored the fact that plaintiffs case, intiffs have to establish their case, which they failed to do and thus, the suit ou . ought not to have been decreed. Defendant N ant No.5 had constructed his house and, house more than 30 years ago and, therefore, bo both the Courts below have erred enue e erred in relying upon the revenue record, whic , which was not updated. Currently, ually rently, the suit property is actually situated in ab abadi deh of village Barhi and the ip of and the possession and ownership of defendant No ant No.5 was always within the kno and he knowledge of the plaintiffs and defendant N ant No.8-Gram Panchayat. The pr t an he present suit is nothing but an outcome of p e of political friction. It is also subm ge is submitted that whether a passage is a public stree ic street within the definition of Sectio 1961 Section 2 (g)(4) of the Act of 1961 or a private p ivate passage is a question to be deter nder e determined by the Collector under Section 11 of 11 of the Act exclusively and thus, ju urt is hus, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. In s . In support, reliance is placed upon this upon the judgment passed by this Court in Sur Surain Singh Vs. Gram Panchaya (4) hayat, Raipur Pirbuxwala 2000(4) RCR(Civil) 8 vil) 86. 9. Having heard learned counsel ants, unsel for the appellants-defendants, this Court fin urt finds no merit in the present appea was appeal. Had the revenue record was not updated, dated, the defendants ought to have b ated have brought on record the updated revenue reco e record to fortify their case that the ly an hat the suit property is currently an abadi deh an and no common gali exists. On shok s. On the other hand, PW2 Ashok Clerk, URK URK Branch DC Office and PW3 P awar W3 Partap Singh, retired Girdawar proved the d the demarcation got conducted by p fe of d by plaintiff No.3-Santosh wife of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.282 820 of 2025 (O&M) -5- Mukesh Ty Tyagi and tion the demarcation report Ex.P2 showed that that encroachmen chments were made by defendants on re, at nts on the suit land. Furthermore, at page No.10 o o.10 of the demarcation report Ex.P2 dant Ex.P2, it is recorded that defendant No.5 Rajesh ajesh, defendant No.7 Balister and er of r and Surender, who is brother of defendant No ant No.1 had refused to sign, which m t the hich means they were present at the time of dema f demarcation. Defendant No.5, who s ox as who stepped into the witness box as DW2 has a has admitted in his cross-examinat the amination that demarcation of the disputed land d land was got conducted by plainti ain plaintiffs. The judgment in Surain Singh (supra) supra) is not applicable to the facts of said cts of the present case, as in the said case, it was t was the Gram Panchayat who filed ingh, filed the suit against Surain Singh, who put up a t up a wall/gate in the street shown r ct, in own red in the site plan. In fact, in the aforesaid resaid judgment, discussion is made this made to judgment passed by this Court in Bh Bhagu and others Vs. Ram Saru 66 Sarup and others 1985 PLJ 366 wherein it wa n it was held that when the “lis” or “d ivate or “dispute” is between two private individuals, j uals, jurisdiction of the Civil Court fact, Court is not taken away. In fact, learned 1st Appellate Court while dismissi d by ismissing the appeals preferred by defendant N ant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 to the 2 to 6, has also relied upon the judgment pas nt passed in Bhagu’s case (supra). 10. It is trite law that in a dispute , the dispute between private parties, the jurisdiction o ction of the Civil Court is not ousted. ourt sted. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court is taken awa n away when “lis” is between the ivate the Gram Panchayat and a private person. The he case set up by the plaintiffs w sage iffs was that a thoroughfare/passage was in existe existence, which has been encroached and, oached upon by the defendants and, therefore, the re, they be directed to clear the enc o be he encroachment and further to be restrained fro ed from raising any construction ther ught n thereon. Neither the relief sought PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.282 820 of 2025 (O&M) -6- in the suit b suit by the plaintiffs was affecting ram cting interest or title of the Gram Panchayat no yat nor the issue was whether the suit ram he suit property vests with the Gram Panchayat or yat or not. 11. As an upshot of above discussio ality cussion, this Court finds no illegality and perversit rversity in concurrent finding of fact ourts of fact rendered by both the Courts below, much much less, no substantial question o ation stion of law arises for consideration and thus, the the same is upheld. Resultantly, is tantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed. 12. Pending misc. application(s), if a
Decision
(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARIND RINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE August 21, 2 Pankaj* , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh