Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baleshwar And Others vs Gram Panchayat And Others on 30 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
110 RSA-242-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision.: 30.04.2026
Baleshwar and Others .....Appellants
Vs.
Gram Panchayat and Others .....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate
for the appellants.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plain"ffs-appellants against the judgment & decree dated 05.03.2020 passed by the learned Addi"onal District Judge, Sonepat, whereby the appeal filed by them against the judgment & decree dated 27.07.2017 of the learned trial Court, was dismissed and thus, dismissal of their suit for possession, was upheld.
2. The plain"ffs ins"tuted a suit seeking possession of land measuring 14 Marla forming part of land comprised in Khewat No.18//15 min, Khata No.38, Rectangle No.31, Killa No.23/2 measuring 5 Kanal 16 Marla, situated in village Shahpur Taga, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat. It was their pleaded case that they are owners of the said land and that the land of defendant No.1-Gram Panchayat bearing Killa No.31//23/1 lies on the northern side of their land. According to the plain"ffs, the defendants had encroached upon a por"on of their land and installed a tube-well thereupon, which fact came to their knowledge in January 2015, when they obtained revenue record. On this premise, a decree for possession to the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.30 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-242-2022 (O&M) extent of 14 Marla was sought.
3. The defendants contested the suit, inter alia, pleading that the tube-well in ques"on was installed within the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat and that it is their land, which abuts the road. The stand taken was that no encroachment whatsoever had been made upon the land of the plain"ffs. The defendants relied upon revenue record including Masavi and Jamabandis to substan"ate their version.
4. Upon the pleadings of the par"es, issues were framed and both sides led evidence. The plain"ffs relied primarily upon a demarca"on report and Aks-Shajra, whereas the defendants produced Masavi and number of Jamabandis and other revenue entries spanning several decades.
5. A?er apprecia"ng the evidence, the learned trial Court returned a finding that the plain"ffs had failed to establish encroachment over their land and consequently dismissed the suit.
6.1 Aggrieved against the said judgment, the plain"ffs preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendants moved an applica"on for leading addi"onal evidence in the form of a judgment & decree dated 10.09.2019 rendered in a separate civil suit, whereby the very Aks-Shajra relied upon by the plain"ffs had been declared illegal and null and void. The learned first Appellate Court, upon considera"on, allowed the applica"on, no"cing that the said judgment had come into existence subsequent to the decision of the trial Court and cons"tuted a relevant and material piece of evidence for proper adjudica"on of the controversy.
6.2 On merits, the learned first Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court and held that the plain"ffs had failed to prove that their land abuts the road or that any encroachment had been made by the defendants. It was observed that in case of discrepancy between Aks- Shajra and Masavi, greater eviden"ary value aAaches to Masavi, as it is NEETIKA TUTEJA Page No. 2 of 5 Pages 2026.04.30 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-242-2022 (O&M) prepared at the "me of consolida"on and forms the basic revenue record. The demarca"on report produced by the plain"ffs, being based on Aks- Shajra, was consequently held to be unreliable. The appeal was thus dismissed.
7. Assailing the above concurrent findings, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued before this Court that the Courts below have erred in apprecia"ng the pleadings and evidence on record. It is contended that the defendants did not specifically deny the asser"on of the plain"ffs regarding the loca"on of the land and, therefore, the same ought to have been treated as admiAed. It is further submiAed that the tes"mony of the plain"ffs' witnesses remained unchallenged on material aspects and that the demarca"on report clearly established encroachment. It has also been argued that the Masavi relied upon by the defendants could not have been looked into in the absence of specific pleadings and that the addi"onal evidence was wrongly permiAed.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the record, this Court finds that the controversy essen"ally revolves around the correct iden"fica"on and loca"on of the respec"ve parcels of land and the alleged encroachment. Both the Courts below have concurrently held, on apprecia"on of oral as well as documentary evidence that the plain"ffs have failed to establish encroachment by the defendants.
9. The reliance placed by the plain"ffs upon Aks-Shajra and the demarca"on report has been rightly disbelieved by the Courts below. The evidence on record shows that Masavi, which is a primary revenue document prepared during consolida"on, indicates that the land of the defendants abuts the road, whereas the land of the plain"ffs lies on the northern side thereof. In the absence of any cogent material to discredit the Masavi, the Courts below were jus"fied in placing reliance upon it. The demarca"on report, being based upon Aks-Shajra, could not have been NEETIKA TUTEJA Page No. 3 of 5 Pages 2026.04.30 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-242-2022 (O&M) accepted once the correctness of Aks-Shajra itself stood seriously undermined, more so when it has been declared null and void in subsequent proceedings.
10. The conten"on regarding deemed admission on account of alleged vague denial in the wriAen statement is also without substance. A statement that a fact is "a maAer of record" cannot be construed as an unequivocal admission, par"cularly when the defendants have otherwise asserted a contrary factual posi"on supported by documentary evidence.
11. Equally untenable is the argument that Masavi could not be looked into for want of specific pleadings. It is a seAled principle that pleadings are required to contain material facts and not the evidence by which such facts are to be proved. Once the dispute pertains to the loca"on and iden"ty of land, produc"on of relevant revenue record cannot be shut out on such technical grounds.
12. The order allowing addi"onal evidence also does not suffer from any illegality. The document sought to be produced came into existence a?er the decision of the trial Court and was found necessary for proper adjudica"on of the dispute. The discre"on exercised by the first Appellate Court in this regard is in consonance with law.
13. It is well seAled that in a Regular Second Appeal, this Court does not sit as a Court of re-apprecia"on of evidence. Interference is warranted only when a substan"al ques"on of law arises. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are based on proper apprecia"on of evidence, and do not suffer from perversity, misapplica"on of law or misreading of evidence.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no substan"al ques"on of law arises for considera"on in the present appeal.
15. Consequently, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
NEETIKA TUTEJAPage No. 4 of 5 Pages 2026.04.30 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-242-2022 (O&M) The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are affirmed. The par"es shall bear their own costs.
All the miscellaneous applica"on(s), if any, stand disposed of.
( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE April 30, 2026 Nee"ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA Page No. 5 of 5 Pages 2026.04.30 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document