Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhangi Ram Through His Lrs vs Phool And Others on 30 November, 2023
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152343
2023:PHHC:152343
125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-1455-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.11.2023
Bhangi Ram (deceased) through LRs
....Petitioner
Versus
Phool (deceased) through LRs and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr. Anuj Baliyan, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for respondent no. 2 to 4
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
1. The petitioner before this Court has filed the first
appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on
23.12.2016. Previously, late Sh.Bhangi Ram filed a suit for the
grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
carving out a passage from his land. During the pendency of the
previous suit, the passage was carved out, forcing the plaintiff to
withdraw the suit and file a fresh one for the grant of relief of
mandatory injunction. During the pendency of the suit, late
Sh.Bhangi Ram filed an application on 06.01.2016, to the competent
authority for demarcating the suit land. However, no demarcation
was carried out. In the meantime, the suit was dismissed on
23.12.2016. After the decision of the trial court, demarcation was
carried out on 07.02.2017. Late Sh.Bhangi Ram also died on
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152343
CR-1455-2020 (O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:152343
08.08.2016. On an application being filed for the impleadment of
his legal representatives they brought on record. They filed an
application for permission to lead additional evidence to produce the
aforesaid demarcation report and prove the same. The same has
been dismissed by the First Appellate Court on the ground that this
fact was in the knowledge of the plaintiff and they have already
tendered the demarcation report dated 26.07.2012, in the case before
the trial court.
2. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at
length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.
Learned counsel representing the petitioner (legal representatives of
late Sh.Bhangi Ram) contends that in this case, the pivotal issue,
that requires consideration, is with respect to the encroachment of
the land belonging to the petitioners by the defendants. Hence, the
demarcation report would help the petitioners to prove their case.
He submits that on 26.07.2012, the road was not carved out from the
land of the petitioners. Hence, it is necessary to produce a fresh
demarcation report that shows the present situation of the land.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
respondent submits that the petitioners were aware of the facts of
the case and therefore, they should not be permitted to lead
additional evidence. He submits that in the year 2013, late
Sh.Bhangi Ram filed a writ petition for getting the area demarcated.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152343
CR-1455-2020 (O&M) 3 2023:PHHC:152343
The High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to look into the
matter but the Deputy Commissioner found that late Sh.Bhangi Ram
wanted to encroach upon the shamlat land.
4. This Court has considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel representing the petitioner and perused the
paperbook.
5. It is evident that the plaintiff filed an application before
the competent authority for demarcating the suit land on 06.01.2016.
However, the revenue authorities failed to take action for a period of
nearly one year, resulting in the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
After the decision of the suit, the demarcation was carried out.
Before the First Appellate Court, an application for permission to
lead evidence has been dimissed, by taking a narrow view. The
courts are expected to take a holistic view of the matter, particularly
when the plaintiff has been making all efforts to get the suit land
demarcated. Not only the application was filed by the plaintiffs on
06.01.2016, requesting the authorities to demarcate the area but they
also filed a writ petition by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction
of the High Court. Even after the direction of the High Court, the
Deputy Commissioner failed to demarcate the area within the
appropriate time period. The demarcation report shall help the
Court to decide the case effectively and farily.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152343
CR-1455-2020 (O&M) 4 2023:PHHC:152343
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the impugned
order is set aside. The application filed by the petitioners is
allowed. They shall be permitted to examine the revenue officials to
prove the demarcation report.
7. The revision petition stands allowed.
8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are
also disposed of.
30.11.2023 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152343
4 of 4
